3 ms·

Part of it is that the culture surrounding ML is quite academic. Most of what I've found has been written for journals or books (the Appel compilers book above,

Part of it is that the culture surrounding ML is quite academic. Most of what I've found has been written for journals or books (the Appel compilers book above, _Purely Functional Data Structures_ by Okasaki, etc.), not blogs. Also, the ML community is rather small, though FWIW I'm only really familiar with the OCaml side of it. Here's[1] a post about an OCaml / LLVM article by Jon Harrop, but it's just an intro for an article in his (pay) OCaml Journal. [1]: http://ocamlnews.blogspot.com/2008/09/writing-bytecode-compiler-using-llvm.html

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
And there, to some extent, is the point. People will continue to write "popular press" articles about builing compilers using flex and bison, possibly targetting C as an intermediate language, until the ML community (or equivalent) becomes less clannish. I'd love to see how clever they are, applaud them for it, and build on their work. They don't seem to care.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  Indeed. I think the ML languages have a lot of ideas that should see more widespread use, but the community (with exceptions, naturally) seems to be more motivated by reputation within academia than on blogs and other open discussions. That's their prerogative, I guess, but it does mean that little activity around ML is visible outside certain circles. I'm curious about writing interpreters / compilers in Prolog (another language that seems particularly suited to prototyping them), as well, but I've already got plenty of projects.