Skip to content

Comment on Why OCaml, Why Now?

Comments

OCaml is Object Caml right? What about SML? I always loved SML, but it never got any traction at all. The O in Ocaml always turned me off, they cluttered up the syntax with all the object notation.

Does anyone have any insight into why OCaml rose to (relative) prominence and not SML?

Ocaml was always the more pragmatic language and for a long time the implementation was significantly faster than anything SML offered. MLton came along very late in the game and offers excellent performance, but doesn't support separate compilation.

Edit: A more lengthy comparison: http://adam.chlipala.net/mlcomp/

Thanks for the perspective!

For me (the author), it's because SML as it was taught to me is a closed language. It can never and will never change. Perfect for education, perhaps not so useful as a career choice.

OCaml has been moving forward; GADTs were added recently, multicore support is coming, and who knows what else is on the horizon.

what saddens me is that aliceml [https://www.ps.uni-saarland.de/alice/] seems to have died. i've kept it vaguely in the back of my mind as "this looks like a very pleasant language, and as soon as i have a problem in its sweet spot i'll give it a good look", but the last time i went to look at it i realised the last mailing list post was in 2012, and the last home page update in 2007.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.