3 ms·
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
by 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 agoHere 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 agowell, 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 agoSyntax is only half the picture. Semantics-wise, I'd say it's reasonably "ML derived".