Discussion:
Linux compiler for ML?
(too old to reply)
Unknown
2012-08-31 20:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Harper seems very enthusiatic about ML.
But I'm getting tired of these claims of 'because language X has nice
algebraic properties, it's suitable for proving correctness'; without
ANY examples to prove the claim.

The wikipedia [there seem to be several] is unduly informal/chatty ?!

Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?

== TIA.
Paul Rubin
2012-08-31 20:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unknown
Harper seems very enthusiatic about ML.
Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?
There's a lot of them. Did you try a web search? Did you look at at
the Standard ML web site (http://standardml.org/) linked from Harper's
site? It has links to several implementations.

There is also OCaml, a dialect considered by some to be more user
friendly. You can find it with a web search.
M. Strobel
2013-04-25 09:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Rubin
Post by Unknown
Harper seems very enthusiatic about ML.
Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?
There's a lot of them. Did you try a web search? Did you look at at
the Standard ML web site (http://standardml.org/) linked from Harper's
site? It has links to several implementations.
standardml.org: Last modified: Fri Jul 18 11:12:59 PDT 2002

This lines up nicely with my prompt answer...

/Str.
Friedrich Dominicus
2013-04-25 12:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by M. Strobel
Post by Paul Rubin
Post by Unknown
Harper seems very enthusiatic about ML.
Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?
There's a lot of them. Did you try a web search? Did you look at at
the Standard ML web site (http://standardml.org/) linked from Harper's
site? It has links to several implementations.
standardml.org: Last modified: Fri Jul 18 11:12:59 PDT 2002
maybe it's stable ;-)
Post by M. Strobel
This lines up nicely with my prompt answer...
How about Ocaml instead?

Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
M. Strobel
2013-04-25 20:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Friedrich Dominicus
Post by M. Strobel
Post by Paul Rubin
Post by Unknown
Harper seems very enthusiatic about ML.
Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?
There's a lot of them. Did you try a web search? Did you look at at
the Standard ML web site (http://standardml.org/) linked from Harper's
site? It has links to several implementations.
standardml.org: Last modified: Fri Jul 18 11:12:59 PDT 2002
maybe it's stable ;-)
q.e.d.
Post by Friedrich Dominicus
Post by M. Strobel
This lines up nicely with my prompt answer...
How about Ocaml instead?
Yes, Sir! And finally some informatics articles in french.

/Str.

Florian Weimer
2012-09-01 13:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unknown
Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?
The main contenders are SML/NJ, PolyML and MLton. Development
activity varies, and the implementations have vastly difference
performance characteristics.

Objective Caml is a different language. I'm not sure if it meets
Harper's approval (mutable string literals, comparison operators which
aren't type-safe, etc.).
Torben Ægidius Mogensen
2012-09-04 08:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Florian Weimer
Post by Unknown
Is there a free/online linux-based version, with good documentation?
The main contenders are SML/NJ, PolyML and MLton. Development
activity varies, and the implementations have vastly difference
performance characteristics.
There is also Moscow ML, which is a light-weight ML system. It may not
generate as fast code as the other compilers, but it compiles faster.

Additionally, there is the ML Kit compiler. It is best known for
supporting region-based memory management as an alternative to (or
combined with) garbage collection. There is a variant of the Kit
compiler that generates Javascript, so you can run programs in a
browser.
Post by Florian Weimer
Objective Caml is a different language. I'm not sure if it meets
Harper's approval (mutable string literals, comparison operators which
aren't type-safe, etc.).
Also, Harper definitely does not approve of the object-oriented features
of O'Caml.

Torben
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...