5 ms·
Standard ML is incredibly usable but also very small (syntactically and semantically) especially compared with modern algol-family languages. There are a coupl
by sgeisenh 5y ago
Standard ML is incredibly usable but also very small (syntactically and semantically) especially compared with modern algol-family languages.
There are a couple of quality of life features missing (most notably is record update syntax), but I really enjoy that the core language has not changed in 25 years.
- qiskit 5y agoIt's great functional language to learn pattern matching, type inference, polymorphism, etc in an academic setting. Great language to compare and contrast to other languages ( dynamic, OOP, imperative, etc ), but I'm not sure how useful it is as I've never seen it used in the business world. When all you knew was C/C++/Java, standard ml throws you for a loop - in a good way.
- chriswarbo 5y agoAt my current job we use Scala extensively. I didn't have much experience with it, but found it pretty easy to pick up, mostly due to its similarity to StandardML (much moreso than e.g. Java, Haskell or Python; which are also clearly influences) In fact, my only previous experience with Scala was from hacking on Isabelle/HOL, which is mostly StandardML, but happens to use Scala in the periphery (scripting, UI, etc.)!
- dbmacqueen 5y agoThere is also ongoing discussion and other work on something called "successor ML" (sML). See smlfamily.org for further information. Functional record update is one of the features contemplated.