Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1ML – unifying ML into one language

mpi-sws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#21

Post by cmrdporcupine »

abecedarius wrote: post #15
mafribe wrote: post #6

Scala, whose modularisation was strongly influenced by ML, already offers most of what 1ML is trying to do.

Scala is complex, and SML is pretty simple. (I haven't studied 1ML beyond the elevator pitch, which claims it's "minimal and uniform".) A very complex language with a large installed base can't offer simplicity.

Even more than being complex, it is also a JVM language. That has both benefits and drawbacks. Interaction with the Java language and runtime brings complexities to it.

Granted, I haven't used Scala since, err, 1.7 days? I think. I liked it, and did a lot of work in it in fact, but more as an alternative to Java.

If I didn't have to worry about compatibility with Java or the proven nature of the JVM, or satisfy sysadmins and management with the orthodox Java-ness of my runtime, I'm not sure I'd pick Scala.

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#22

Post by cmrdporcupine »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #19
drudru wrote: post #13

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 taught myself OCaml first (err... 15 years ago? when there was some initial buzz around it) and liked it. 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 should add I also gave Haskell a spin and did not like it. While I can see its elegance, I found ML more readable and practical and easier to write. My eyes glaze over in Haskell, it's like it's missing punctuation or something to let me know what it's doing.

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#23

Post by istvan__ »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #22
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I taught myself OCaml first (err... 15 years ago? when there was some initial buzz around it) and liked it. 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 should add I also gave Haskell a spin and did not like it. While I can see its elegance, I found ML more readable and practical and easier to write. My eyes glaze over in Haskell, it's like it's missing punctuation or something to let me know what it's doing.

Totally agree with you own this one, just looked into Haskell code this week and it was too much black magic going on. I like ML (and more specifically OCaml) because it is more readable to me and easier to understand. Now this might change if I get more exposure to both worlds.

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#24

Post by mafribe »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21
abecedarius wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scala is complex, and SML is pretty simple. (I haven't studied 1ML beyond the elevator pitch, which claims it's "minimal and uniform".) A very complex language with a large installed base can't offer simplicity.

Even more than being complex, it is also a JVM language. That has both benefits and drawbacks. Interaction with the Java language and runtime brings complexities to it. Granted, I haven't used Scala since, err, 1.7 days? I think. I liked it, and did a lot of work in it in fact, but more as an alternative to Java. If I didn't have to worry about compatibility with Java or the proven nature of the JVM, or satisfy sysad…

I'd never have left the ML world had it not been for the lack of an ecosystem that's comparable to what the JVM has to offer. And my Scala programs mostly just use ML-like features, but I can't live without all those rich libraries that are lacking in ML.

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#25

Post by ValentineSmith »

drudru wrote: post #13

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 couldn't agree more. The power / complexity ratio for SML is very high.

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#28

Post by tokenrove »

mafribe wrote: post #24
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more than being complex, it is also a JVM language. That has both benefits and drawbacks. Interaction with the Java language and runtime brings complexities to it. Granted, I haven't used Scala since, err, 1.7 days? I think. I liked it, and did a lot of work in it in fact, but more as an alternative to Java. If I didn't have to worry about compatibility with Java or the proven nature of the JVM, or satisfy sysad…

I'd never have left the ML world had it not been for the lack of an ecosystem that's comparable to what the JVM has to offer. And my Scala programs mostly just use ML-like features, but I can't live without all those rich libraries that are lacking in ML.

Yeti is pretty nice if you have to work on the JVM: http://mth.github.io/yeti/

Re: 1ML – unifying ML into one language

#29

Post by cmrdporcupine »

mafribe wrote: post #24
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more than being complex, it is also a JVM language. That has both benefits and drawbacks. Interaction with the Java language and runtime brings complexities to it. Granted, I haven't used Scala since, err, 1.7 days? I think. I liked it, and did a lot of work in it in fact, but more as an alternative to Java. If I didn't have to worry about compatibility with Java or the proven nature of the JVM, or satisfy sysad…

I'd never have left the ML world had it not been for the lack of an ecosystem that's comparable to what the JVM has to offer. And my Scala programs mostly just use ML-like features, but I can't live without all those rich libraries that are lacking in ML.

Last time I looked into OCaml it seemed to have most of everything I'd need for most projects.

But I think it'd be hard to find an employer willing to pay me to work in it.

Post reply on HN