1. 33
  1.  

  2. 4

    It’s impressive how much StandardML has resisted extensions over the years, especially in a world where people believe that adding a feature improves a language.

    I’ll always be fond of ML and ML-like languages (except Ocaml and Reason).

    1. 3

      SML/NJ (probably the most used, most popular) does have a bunch of extensions and MLton has adopted some of them.

      But there’s nothing like camlp4.

      1. 2

        how much StandardML has resisted extensions over the years

        This is discussed in section 9.3 of the HOPL IV paper from this year; Milner and Tofte expressly stated in a mailing list post from 2001 that there would be no further revisions to the Definition, and that any future work would not be “Standard ML”.

        An amusing (but entirely relatable!) quote from an interview with Milner in 2010 suggests that even from the early days, there was a desire to prevent too much meddling:

        By the way we called it `Standard’ ML to prevent some organisation stepping in to standardise it.

        1. 2

          I’ll always be fond of ML and ML-like languages (except Ocaml and Reason).

          Why the exclusion?

          1. 1

            Lack of taste.

            1. 3

              You could also call that “pragmatism”. Look at the respective size of communities :-)

              I find OCaml mostly tasteful. Compared to SML it has better pattern matching and applicative functors, for example.

              1. 2

                I have to agree; as much as I like SML, it’s not always the easiest to work with. iirc, Okasaki even mentions this in some commentary about Purely Functional Data Structures, that he had to flub some of the SML code because it wasn’t working the way he needed it to, and Haskell was easier to work with.

                Personally, I prefer F# to OCaml proper, but either is probably fine. There’s definitely a siren’s song for the simplicity that SML provides, and ML for the Working Programmer was definitely a foundational book in my thinking.