[MLton] using MLBs for scripting

[Stephen Weeks]

> Surprisingly, in my experience, the strong vs dynamic typing issue, was
> not an issue.  Most would assume the light weightness of dynamically
> typed language is "ideal" for scripts and is an advantage.  To the
> contrary the REPL, fast compile, and static error checking of SML/NJ, I
> found, enhanced the speed of scripting.  

I agree completely.

> What I found lacking was libraries, bindings, and bindings, and
> libraries.  Lots of them.  Breadth, depth and scope. 
...
> So this dove tails and segues into another potential sweet spot for
> mlbs, libraries, and a structured system to accommodate comprehensive
> suites of them.
...
> How should large comprehensive suites of libraries and components be
> organized in SML or MLton with mlbs in particular?  

Yes, I think libraries is the next big issue to tackle with MLton --
both adding new ones, and having a nice system for packaging,
downloading, updating, keeping dependencies etc.  For this release,
though, my only goal is to get MLBs out there and starting getting
some use and feedback.  After the release, I plan to analyze lots of
systems (*BSD ports, rpms, debian packages, GODI, Python, PHP, CPAN,
...) and try to learn what I can and to design something for MLton,
with lots of discussion and help from the list!