undefined | Better HN

0 pointslarsberg9y ago0 comments

You can hear a bunch more about the full history of development of SML and interaction with OCaml here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVEgyJCTee4

I would definitely agree with the opinion above that the SML language designers fall in the camp of deliberating extensively and fully formalizing all new language features before considering them for inclusion.

Today, there are two challenges right now in the Successor ML space:

- There's some broad agreement on a few things that should obviously be improved, but today many of the implementation owners don't have a huge amount of time, so getting them to also agree to the new features is complicated. Life is way easier when you only have one implementation.

- There's a bunch of fantastic ideas (largely driven by Bob Harper) to integrate stuff like parallelism, cost model, etc. that will be fantastic for a next version of the language and specification. It's just a lot of work, and not really publishable, so it's mainly tenured faculty and "alumni" (like myself and probably the people you work with) driving it forward in our free time.

That said, I still love working on SML and its implementations (I mainly contribute to SML/NJ and Manticore) and it's a wonderful escape from the grim reality of quarterly goals and "get it out the door" release deadlines :-)

0 comments

Athas9y ago

> many of the implementation owners don't have a huge amount of time, so getting them to also agree to the new features is complicated.

That's another thing I noticed - people are not really prototyping the new ideas. I know that Bob Harper and John Reppy are also working on other projects, so they probably can't invest much implementation time on SML anymore. I wonder how OCaml and Haskell managed to keep implementers active.

The Successor-ML feature I'm just curious about is modular implicits (or some of the other alternatives mentioned by Harper). I much prefer the SML module system to Haskell's type classes, except that it is notationally more cumbersome in use. Sprinkling a little bit of implicit behaviour (when choice of functor is unambiguous) would help a lot.

larsbergOP9y ago

> I wonder how OCaml and Haskell managed to keep implementers active.

Members of that community could probably comment better than I, but it doesn't hurt that Microsoft Research supported two core Haskell team members and Inria has supported core OCaml work for most of the lifetimes of the projects. Their better corporate focus has also meant that as some fabulously enlightented BigCos took dependencies on them (most notably Standard Chartered for Haskell & Jane Street for OCaml), they've both hired core developers and supported the communities. I should add that these have been fantastic for the PL community in general and specifically ICFP funding & attendance!

For as much as the members of any one community might have differences of opinion with the choices of the others, success of any benefit us all. Even if we do grumble occasionally with the "can't get into ICFP this year unless you're in language {X}!" comments, where X was Scheme, then ML, then Haskell... :-)

> people are not really prototyping the new ideas

Yeah, John's group plus Matthew Fluet and a little bit of myself are trying to clean up Manticore enough to do a "final" release and journal paper, and that is kinda taking up a lot of our extra cycles. Several other folks have either retired or moved on to new areas (security, compiler verification, etc.).

I think that if we could find some places where the new ideas intersected with interesting novel (read: fundable) research topics, there'd be some additional energy into implementation work around them. Right now, certainly, stuff exists, at best, in private forks of (typically) MLton.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse