The Haskell community, in my experience, is far more academic. A recent post to the Haskell libraries mailing list began with:
"It was pointed out to me in a private communication that the tuple function \x->(x,x) is actually a special case of a diagonalization for biapplicative and some related structures monadicially."
It received 39 pretty enthusiast replies.
I don't expect this sort of discussion on Ocaml mailing lists (please correct me, Ocaml mailing list subscribers!) And I think the reason is that Haskell makes this sort of abstraction very very easy, and makes it pay off, while Ocaml does not. In Ocaml, it's not even useful to abstractly define functors, which are the most basic data of category theory. In Haskell, functors are a typeclass that comes with the prelude and are hard to avoid. And there's no reason why you wouldn't use a biapplicative either:
"It was pointed out to me in a private communication that the tuple function \x->(x,x) is actually a special case of a diagonalization for biapplicative and some related structures monadicially."
It received 39 pretty enthusiast replies.
I don't expect this sort of discussion on Ocaml mailing lists (please correct me, Ocaml mailing list subscribers!) And I think the reason is that Haskell makes this sort of abstraction very very easy, and makes it pay off, while Ocaml does not. In Ocaml, it's not even useful to abstractly define functors, which are the most basic data of category theory. In Haskell, functors are a typeclass that comes with the prelude and are hard to avoid. And there's no reason why you wouldn't use a biapplicative either:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bifunctors-5.5.7/docs/Da...