SML vs Ocaml for ECMA script spec.
Daniel C. Wang
danwang74 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 24 10:30:11 PDT 2006
This is all great news. I hope you all know what a groundbreaking a step
this is in terms of the state of the art in language specification.
I wish you guys all the luck. In one of my pipe dreams someone sits down
and uses ML to specify something like the JVM or CLR next. Then of
course everyone reads the wonderfully concise specs that they can also
execute, and start wondering... why the hell am I programing in Java,
pretty cool too, if it only had datatypes...)
The history of ML was that it was the "scripting" language for a theorem
prover. At some point people realized that it was cool and useful on
Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Daniel C. Wang wrote:
>> P.S. You guys obviously have enough taste to be thinking of using any
>> ML for the language spec. So, I'm sure after you review all the facts
>> you'll do the right thing again and choose SML.
> Flattery will get you everywhere ;-).
> We are agreed now on SML, using SMLNJ. Our flirtation with OCaml was
> based on convenience and familiarity, but as I noted in another
> message, we were committed to using a small core language, plus
> continuation support of some kind (for OCaml this meant a patch; with
> SMLNJ, no patch).
> Dave will post to LtU soon, I'm sure.
More information about the Es4-discuss