11–20 of 63 posts
Classic https://xkcd.com/927/
This actually doesn't have to do with that. They "propose a redesign of ML in which modules are truly first-class values, and core and module layer are unified into one language." They're not trying to, say, unify SML and OCaml, they're trying to solve a problem inherent to ML itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This actually doesn't have to do with that. They "propose a redesign of ML in which modules are truly first-class values, and core and module layer are unified into one language." They're not trying to, say, unify SML and OCaml, they're trying to solve a problem inherent to ML itself.
Can you elaborate on why these are problems for ML?
It would be great to see the ML community unify and provide an offering that would give it the kind of support that we are seeing in OCaml and Haskell.
https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/first-class-modules.ht...
Scala, whose modularisation was strongly influenced by ML, already offers most of what 1ML is trying to do.
Not sure if this mirrors his approach exactly, but ocaml does now offer 'first-class modules' https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/first-class-modules.ht...
Not sure if this mirrors his approach exactly, but ocaml does now offer 'first-class modules' https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/first-class-modules.ht...
I know this is not popular. I think ML has a clean syntax and simple but powerful semantics. I enjoyed coding in it. It just looks better than OCaml. Haskell is, I think, even cleaner, but there is a tendency for developers to explore the possibilities available in Haskell and then increase the complexity. It would be great to see the ML community unify and provide an offering that would give it the kind of support t…
I know this is not popular. I think ML has a clean syntax and simple but powerful semantics. I enjoyed coding in it. It just looks better than OCaml. Haskell is, I think, even cleaner, but there is a tendency for developers to explore the possibilities available in Haskell and then increase the complexity. It would be great to see the ML community unify and provide an offering that would give it the kind of support t…
But then I discovered SML/NJ and I liked it more.
OCaml has an active community, and the language is nice. I think I actually prefer ML as a language.
I know this is not popular. I think ML has a clean syntax and simple but powerful semantics. I enjoyed coding in it. It just looks better than OCaml. Haskell is, I think, even cleaner, but there is a tendency for developers to explore the possibilities available in Haskell and then increase the complexity. It would be great to see the ML community unify and provide an offering that would give it the kind of support t…
Consolidating the module and expression languages in 1ML will lead to even cleaner semantics. From the abstract of the Andreas Rossberg paper:
> In this “1ML”, functions, functors, and even type constructors are one and the same construct; likewise, no distinction is made between structures, records, or tuples. Or viewed the other way round, everything is just (“a mode of use of”) modules.
Haven't had a chance to look at the demo yet, but hopefully functions/records/tuples can be sugared over syntactically into something resembling traditional ML. Otherwise we might end up with something like Java where there isn't much abstraction from the underlying OO mechanism, which makes code tedious and prone to boilerplate -- eg all functions (methods) must live in a class, even just to run main.