SML definitely has a nicer formal definition but OCaml has better performance and a lot more functionalities. I wouldn’t say SML is the better language but the syntax definitely is cleaner.
Strangely I think SML focus on being well defined and tidy is why it never really took off. A language success is linked to its community and your features define who will want to join you. It seems to me that at the beginning it’s better to attract tinkerers than perfectionists.
Past a certain minimal threshold of needed functionality, I prefer a language not to have a couple good features than to have a really bad one, like implementation inheritance, particularly multiple inheritance.
Comments
SML definitely has a nicer formal definition but OCaml has better performance and a lot more functionalities. I wouldn’t say SML is the better language but the syntax definitely is cleaner.
Strangely I think SML focus on being well defined and tidy is why it never really took off. A language success is linked to its community and your features define who will want to join you. It seems to me that at the beginning it’s better to attract tinkerers than perfectionists.
> OCaml has better performance
That statement needs some evidence.
> a lot more functionalities
Past a certain minimal threshold of needed functionality, I prefer a language not to have a couple good features than to have a really bad one, like implementation inheritance, particularly multiple inheritance.