1. 38
  1.  

  2. 7

    For those who are confused between decades of buzzworthy computing (i.e. myself), the ML refers to ‘Meta Language’ , not ‘Machine Learning’

    1. 13

      I’m so very old. “ML” for me has always meant ML or one of its descendant languages. That it now has a new meaning that is more assumed than its classic one fills me with dread for the new generation with their long hair and rock music and yoloing.

      1. 3

        I think it’s more about different domains than different generations. But, the machine learning application area is now much bigger than the progamming languages world. Lobsters is one of the few places I know where they regularly intersect.

      2. 1

        Thank you. I was about to post a disgruntled comment that nowhere, not in the preface, or the first chapter of the book, is what “ML” actually stands for.

        1. 12

          People don’t really treat it as an acronym that stands for anything anymore; the name of the language family is just “ML”. It did historically come from “Meta Language”, since an early version of the language was used to provide meta-level control of the operation of a theorem prover. But it’s no longer used as a meta language or named that. So e.g. in an acronym like “SML” (which still is an acronym!), the usual expansion is just to “Standard ML”, which is a specific variant of the language family ML.

          1. 2

            Note that it’s under the ml tag, which is actually for… ML. Not machine learning.

        2. 3

          Does anyone have an opinion on the content?

          1. 5

            excellent intro to SML. better than “Elements of ML programming” which if often listed alongside.