4 ms·

sml, specifically the MLTon dialect. It's good for all the same reasons ocaml is good, it's just a much better version of the ML-language in my opinion. I thin

sml, specifically the MLTon dialect. It's good for all the same reasons ocaml is good, it's just a much better version of the ML-language in my opinion. I think the only thing that ocaml has that I miss in sml is applicative functors, but in the end that just translates to slightly different module styles.

wk_end 1y ago
Can you expand on what makes SML better, in your eyes, than OCaml? IMO: it's certainly "simpler" and "cleaner" (although it's been a while but IIRC the treatment of things like equality and arithmetic is hacky in its own way), which I think causes some people to prefer SML over aesthetics, but TBH I feel like many of OCaml's features missing in SML are quite useful. You mentioned applicative functors, but there's also things like labelled arguments, polymorphic variants, GADTs, even the much-maligned object system that have their place. Is there anything SML really brings to the table besides the omission of features like this?
- johnnyjeans 1y ago
  > the treatment of things like equality and arithmetic is hacky in its own way mlton allows you to use a keyword to get the same facility for function overloading that is used for addition and equality. it's disabled by default for hygienic reasons, function overloading shouldn't be abused. https://baturin.org/code/mlton-overload/ https://baturin.org/code/mlton-overload/ > labelled arguments generally speaking if my functions are large enough for this to matter, i'd rather be passing around refs to structures so refactoring is easier. > polymorphic variants haven't really missed them. > GADTs afaik being able to store functors inside of modules would fix this (and I think sml/nj supports this), but SML's type system is more than capable of expressing virtual machines in a comfortable way with normal ADTs. if i wanted to get that cute with the type system, i'd probably go the whole country mile and reach for idris. > even the much-maligned object system that have their place never used it. > Is there anything SML really brings to the table besides the omission of features like this? mlton is whole-program optimizing (and very good at it)[1], has a much better FFI[2][3], is much less opinionated as a language, and the parallelism is about 30 years ahead[4]. the most important feature to me is that sml is more comfortable to use over ocaml. being nicer syntactically matters, and that increases in proportion with the amount of code you have to read and write. you dont go hiking in flip flops. as a knock-on effect, that simplicitly in sml ends up with a language that allows for a lot more mechanical sympathy. all of these things combine for me, as an engineer, to what's fundamentally a more pragmatic language. the french have peculiar taste in programming languages, marseille prolog is also kind of weird. ocaml feels quirky in the same way as a french car, and i don't necessarily want that from a tool. [1] - http://www.mlton.org/Performance http://www.mlton.org/Performance [2] - http://www.mlton.org/ForeignFunctionInterface http://www.mlton.org/ForeignFunctionInterface [3] - http://www.mlton.org/MLNLFFIGen http://www.mlton.org/MLNLFFIGen [4] - https://sss.cs.purdue.edu/projects/multiMLton/mML/Documentation.html https://sss.cs.purdue.edu/projects/multiMLton/mML/Documentat...
  - vkazanov 1y ago
    I love, love, love StandardML. I respect the sheer power of what mlton does. The language itself is clean, easy to understand, reads better than anything else out there, and is also well-formalised. I read (enjoyed!) the tiger book before I knew anything about SML. Sadly, this purism (not as in Haskell but as a vision) is what probably killed it. MLTon or not, the language needed to evolve, expand, rework the stdlib, etc. But authors were just not interested in the boring part of language maintenance.
    - johnnyjeans 1y ago
      What are your thoughts on basis[1] and successorml[2]? [1] - http://www.mlton.org/MLBasis http://www.mlton.org/MLBasis [2] - https://smlfamily.github.io/successor-ml/ https://smlfamily.github.io/successor-ml/
      - vkazanov 1y ago
        I don't think these change anything for the language. Too little, too late.
makeset 1y ago
I remember working through Appel's compiler textbook in school, in SML and Java editions side by side, and the SML version was of course laughably more concise. It felt like cheating, because it practically was.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Nowadays you could make the Java version quite similar to the SML one, if there would be a new edition. I have been looking forward to ML like capabilities on mainstream since using Caml Light. Regarding those books, while we used the Java version, alongside JavaCC, when time came to actually buy the book, I also got the SML edition.
  - vkazanov 1y ago
    Heh... I got the C version first, which was a mess, only to immediately order the ML one. > have been looking forward to ML like capabilities on mainstream since using Caml Light. Modern Java is not built around ADTs and pattern matching, these things feel a bit bolted on. SML feels almost like a compiler writing DSL.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      The difference is that I get to use Java at work, and never will be able to use SML, perfection usually fails in mainstream adoption, as proven by the whole worse is better mindset languages. I rather have Java, C#, C++, Kotlin, Rust,.... with their imperfections to ML, Smalltalk, and Lisp ideas, than hoping for getting the right languages at the workplace. Fully agree on the C edition.
      - vkazanov 1y ago
        True. Good enough wins. Worse is better rules. Release early... and so on. I am old enough to remember the full drama behind adding lambda to python, and resistance to bits of functional goodies coming from lisps. But here we are. Java is an aaaalmost acceptable language! While scheme, standardml and numerous other perfect little languages are mostly just Wikipedia pages now.

wk_end 1y ago

Can you expand on what makes SML better, in your eyes, than OCaml? IMO: it's certainly "simpler" and "cleaner" (although it's been a while but IIRC the treatment of things like equality and arithmetic is hacky in its own way), which I think causes some people to prefer SML over aesthetics, but TBH I feel like many of OCaml's features missing in SML are quite useful. You mentioned applicative functors, but there's also things like labelled arguments, polymorphic variants, GADTs, even the much-maligned object system that have their place. Is there anything SML really brings to the table besides the omission of features like this?

johnnyjeans 1y ago
> the treatment of things like equality and arithmetic is hacky in its own way mlton allows you to use a keyword to get the same facility for function overloading that is used for addition and equality. it's disabled by default for hygienic reasons, function overloading shouldn't be abused. https://baturin.org/code/mlton-overload/ https://baturin.org/code/mlton-overload/ > labelled arguments generally speaking if my functions are large enough for this to matter, i'd rather be passing around refs to structures so refactoring is easier. > polymorphic variants haven't really missed them. > GADTs afaik being able to store functors inside of modules would fix this (and I think sml/nj supports this), but SML's type system is more than capable of expressing virtual machines in a comfortable way with normal ADTs. if i wanted to get that cute with the type system, i'd probably go the whole country mile and reach for idris. > even the much-maligned object system that have their place never used it. > Is there anything SML really brings to the table besides the omission of features like this? mlton is whole-program optimizing (and very good at it)[1], has a much better FFI[2][3], is much less opinionated as a language, and the parallelism is about 30 years ahead[4]. the most important feature to me is that sml is more comfortable to use over ocaml. being nicer syntactically matters, and that increases in proportion with the amount of code you have to read and write. you dont go hiking in flip flops. as a knock-on effect, that simplicitly in sml ends up with a language that allows for a lot more mechanical sympathy. all of these things combine for me, as an engineer, to what's fundamentally a more pragmatic language. the french have peculiar taste in programming languages, marseille prolog is also kind of weird. ocaml feels quirky in the same way as a french car, and i don't necessarily want that from a tool. [1] - http://www.mlton.org/Performance http://www.mlton.org/Performance [2] - http://www.mlton.org/ForeignFunctionInterface http://www.mlton.org/ForeignFunctionInterface [3] - http://www.mlton.org/MLNLFFIGen http://www.mlton.org/MLNLFFIGen [4] - https://sss.cs.purdue.edu/projects/multiMLton/mML/Documentation.html https://sss.cs.purdue.edu/projects/multiMLton/mML/Documentat...
- vkazanov 1y ago
  I love, love, love StandardML. I respect the sheer power of what mlton does. The language itself is clean, easy to understand, reads better than anything else out there, and is also well-formalised. I read (enjoyed!) the tiger book before I knew anything about SML. Sadly, this purism (not as in Haskell but as a vision) is what probably killed it. MLTon or not, the language needed to evolve, expand, rework the stdlib, etc. But authors were just not interested in the boring part of language maintenance.
  - johnnyjeans 1y ago
    What are your thoughts on basis[1] and successorml[2]? [1] - http://www.mlton.org/MLBasis http://www.mlton.org/MLBasis [2] - https://smlfamily.github.io/successor-ml/ https://smlfamily.github.io/successor-ml/
    - vkazanov 1y ago
      I don't think these change anything for the language. Too little, too late.

makeset 1y ago

I remember working through Appel's compiler textbook in school, in SML and Java editions side by side, and the SML version was of course laughably more concise. It felt like cheating, because it practically was.

pjmlp 1y ago
Nowadays you could make the Java version quite similar to the SML one, if there would be a new edition. I have been looking forward to ML like capabilities on mainstream since using Caml Light. Regarding those books, while we used the Java version, alongside JavaCC, when time came to actually buy the book, I also got the SML edition.
- vkazanov 1y ago
  Heh... I got the C version first, which was a mess, only to immediately order the ML one. > have been looking forward to ML like capabilities on mainstream since using Caml Light. Modern Java is not built around ADTs and pattern matching, these things feel a bit bolted on. SML feels almost like a compiler writing DSL.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    The difference is that I get to use Java at work, and never will be able to use SML, perfection usually fails in mainstream adoption, as proven by the whole worse is better mindset languages. I rather have Java, C#, C++, Kotlin, Rust,.... with their imperfections to ML, Smalltalk, and Lisp ideas, than hoping for getting the right languages at the workplace. Fully agree on the C edition.
    - vkazanov 1y ago
      True. Good enough wins. Worse is better rules. Release early... and so on. I am old enough to remember the full drama behind adding lambda to python, and resistance to bits of functional goodies coming from lisps. But here we are. Java is an aaaalmost acceptable language! While scheme, standardml and numerous other perfect little languages are mostly just Wikipedia pages now.