[MLton] Hmmm.... ML

[Daniel C. Wang]

If you wanted me to ship something today, I'd use F#, C#, or Ocaml in 
that order of preference.
However, if you wanted for my system to be a reference that will live 
around for several years and has to be understood by the widest set of 
people, I'd choose SML. Then I make sure it compiled under Hamlet, 
MLton, and SML/NJ.

The Ecmascript stuff is all about avoiding writing some hairy spec of 
the language and replacing it with code. I.e. it's meant mainly to be 
read and understood. It's a nice and important side effect that you can 
actually compile and run it.

skaller wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 10:32 -0700, Daniel C. Wang wrote:
>
>   
>> we should just just give up 
>> on SML. Because if we can convince people to use SML for this 
>> application what can we convince people to use SML over Ocaml for!
>>     
>
> There are two *distinct* issues here.
>
> The first issue is language. Clearly SML is a bit archaic:
> Ocaml is moving ahead. I use Ocaml's polymorphic variants
> in my product, and that is one part of my code I would not
> like to translate backwards to SML's weaker variants.
>