4 ms·

Yeti : an ML-derived language for the JVM

mitko 17y ago
I don't see why this is Machine Learning -derived. Or maybe ML stands for something else here... Edit: Thanks for clarifying. It is good to remember that there is other viewpoints :)
- rw 17y ago
  Look up the ML language :-)
- sharksandwich 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29
- kscaldef 17y ago
  It is derived from the ML programming language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29). Other languages in this family are SML, OCaml, Scala, F#, and (more-or-less) Haskell.
kscaldef 17y ago
It would be nice to see a section on "How is Yeti different from Scala?".
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  from a quick glance (only), and not being terribly proficient in either scala or ml, i would say: - yeti appears to be quite a faithful port of sml to the jvm, while scala is perhaps best thought of as the bastard offspring of java and haskell. - as a consequence, yeti is simpler and intended for programming in a functional style. while scala is much more complex and "object functional" (is that a recognised description these days?). - the integration between java and scala appears to be somewhat cleaner than that between java and yeti (although both are fairly good). - scala's type system is significantly more powerful. someone better educated than me can explain the difference in detail, but yeti seems to have just "simple" polymorphism, while scala has bounded types etc(1). - scala also has a whole pile of tricks related to getting the type system to do things "implicitly" that is, well, i guess you either love it or hate it. - yeti appears to be better than scala at getting optimised (ie not broken) tail calls to work. - scala is baroque; yeti minimal. - scala may be the future of java programming (which is good). yeti certainly isn't (which is a pity, imho). - a lot of the above parallels the difference between ml and haskell (if you ignore the laziness part). these days, haskell is a bit of a monster; ml is significantly simpler (even ocaml). (1) what happens with yeti when you have polymorphism and mutable containers? i have no idea. perhaps runtime type errors?
  - gdp 17y ago
    I'm not sure it's a particularly faithful port of ML, and particularly not SML. It doesn't really look anything like ML. It looks like a bit of a mishmash of syntaxes, if anything, so I'm really not sure what makes it "ML derived" any more than it is Python-derived or Algol-derived.
    - jbapple 17y ago
      Here is a list of features that Yeti has that are either not in Python or not in Algol. That is, none of these features is in both Algol-60 and Python: * static typing * discriminated unions * first-class functions * immutability by default * pattern matching These are all present in both Yeti and SML. Yes, Yeti is not SML, but I think it's much closer to ML and Friends than it is to any other language family, even Haskell or Scala.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
      - andrewcooke 17y ago
        well, i brought sml into it originally. all i really meant was that it looked more like sml (+ java) than ocaml (if that makes any sense - yeti doesn't seem to have the kind of sophistication ocaml has for handling typed objects, for example). but i'm no expert - i'm happy to see people expand and improve on what i wrote.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - j_baker 17y ago
      Syntax is only half the picture. Semantics-wise, I'd say it's reasonably "ML derived".
  - jbapple 17y ago
    Regarding the last question: "what happens with yeti when you have polymorphism and mutable containers?" In section: http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#type-declarations http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#type-declarations "Variable (and argument) bindings are not polymorphic (it would make typesystem unsound), and therefore their type changes:" For more details about this type unsoundness in ML, see the long version of "Relaxing the value restriction": http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/preprint/file/RIMS1444.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/preprint/file/RIMS1444.pdf
jbapple 17y ago
Here is another way to run an ML-like language on the JVM: http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/ http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/ It supports all of OCaml, but it seems complicated to get running along Java with the same sophistication as Yeti. For instance, it seems that one must use the "Nickel" tool to generate Java bindings, rather than simply using "#" for Java calls as in Yeti: http://nickel.x9c.fr/index.html http://nickel.x9c.fr/index.html http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#using-java-classes-from-yeti-code http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#using-java-classes-from...
budu 17y ago
do is not fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29#Factorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29#F...

mitko 17y ago

I don't see why this is Machine Learning -derived. Or maybe ML stands for something else here... Edit: Thanks for clarifying. It is good to remember that there is other viewpoints :)

rw 17y ago
Look up the ML language :-)
sharksandwich 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29
kscaldef 17y ago
It is derived from the ML programming language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29). Other languages in this family are SML, OCaml, Scala, F#, and (more-or-less) Haskell.

kscaldef 17y ago

It would be nice to see a section on "How is Yeti different from Scala?".

andrewcooke 17y ago
from a quick glance (only), and not being terribly proficient in either scala or ml, i would say: - yeti appears to be quite a faithful port of sml to the jvm, while scala is perhaps best thought of as the bastard offspring of java and haskell. - as a consequence, yeti is simpler and intended for programming in a functional style. while scala is much more complex and "object functional" (is that a recognised description these days?). - the integration between java and scala appears to be somewhat cleaner than that between java and yeti (although both are fairly good). - scala's type system is significantly more powerful. someone better educated than me can explain the difference in detail, but yeti seems to have just "simple" polymorphism, while scala has bounded types etc(1). - scala also has a whole pile of tricks related to getting the type system to do things "implicitly" that is, well, i guess you either love it or hate it. - yeti appears to be better than scala at getting optimised (ie not broken) tail calls to work. - scala is baroque; yeti minimal. - scala may be the future of java programming (which is good). yeti certainly isn't (which is a pity, imho). - a lot of the above parallels the difference between ml and haskell (if you ignore the laziness part). these days, haskell is a bit of a monster; ml is significantly simpler (even ocaml). (1) what happens with yeti when you have polymorphism and mutable containers? i have no idea. perhaps runtime type errors?
- gdp 17y ago
  I'm not sure it's a particularly faithful port of ML, and particularly not SML. It doesn't really look anything like ML. It looks like a bit of a mishmash of syntaxes, if anything, so I'm really not sure what makes it "ML derived" any more than it is Python-derived or Algol-derived.
  - jbapple 17y ago
    Here is a list of features that Yeti has that are either not in Python or not in Algol. That is, none of these features is in both Algol-60 and Python: * static typing * discriminated unions * first-class functions * immutability by default * pattern matching These are all present in both Yeti and SML. Yes, Yeti is not SML, but I think it's much closer to ML and Friends than it is to any other language family, even Haskell or Scala.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - andrewcooke 17y ago
      well, i brought sml into it originally. all i really meant was that it looked more like sml (+ java) than ocaml (if that makes any sense - yeti doesn't seem to have the kind of sophistication ocaml has for handling typed objects, for example). but i'm no expert - i'm happy to see people expand and improve on what i wrote.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - j_baker 17y ago
    Syntax is only half the picture. Semantics-wise, I'd say it's reasonably "ML derived".
- jbapple 17y ago
  Regarding the last question: "what happens with yeti when you have polymorphism and mutable containers?" In section: http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#type-declarations http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#type-declarations "Variable (and argument) bindings are not polymorphic (it would make typesystem unsound), and therefore their type changes:" For more details about this type unsoundness in ML, see the long version of "Relaxing the value restriction": http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/preprint/file/RIMS1444.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/preprint/file/RIMS1444.pdf

jbapple 17y ago

Here is another way to run an ML-like language on the JVM: http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/ http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/ It supports all of OCaml, but it seems complicated to get running along Java with the same sophistication as Yeti. For instance, it seems that one must use the "Nickel" tool to generate Java bindings, rather than simply using "#" for Java calls as in Yeti: http://nickel.x9c.fr/index.html http://nickel.x9c.fr/index.html http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#using-java-classes-from-yeti-code http://linux.ee/~mzz/yeti/intro.html#using-java-classes-from...

budu 17y ago

do is not fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29#Factorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_%28programming_language%29#F...