Never could adapt to OCaml's undisciplined syntax. SML's is clean. MLTon is very nice with a couple of limitations, practical upper bound of program size and compilation times.
One of the co-authors, S. Weeks, was (is?) one of the core MLTon compiler developers. If feasible they certainly could have evolved the compiler and the SML language.
Somewhat interesting is F# lost out to Ocaml in a bakeoff.
In a way Jane St. has got themselves in a bit of a corner. I don't see how Ocaml is substantially less moribund then SML.
Here is an interesting thought to mull over. With the upcoming 2.8 Scala compiler _every_ substantive feature of (S/C)ML is available with equal or higher capability.
In other words, strike out use of objects in Scala and one is left with the most advanced (and active) MLs around. Hmm...
One of the co-authors, S. Weeks, was (is?) one of the core MLTon compiler developers. If feasible they certainly could have evolved the compiler and the SML language.
Somewhat interesting is F# lost out to Ocaml in a bakeoff.
In a way Jane St. has got themselves in a bit of a corner. I don't see how Ocaml is substantially less moribund then SML.
Here is an interesting thought to mull over. With the upcoming 2.8 Scala compiler _every_ substantive feature of (S/C)ML is available with equal or higher capability.
In other words, strike out use of objects in Scala and one is left with the most advanced (and active) MLs around. Hmm...