MLton VS OCaml

Once I got the parser ready in OCaml, I thought I port it to Standard ML, since it belong to the same ML language family. I was also curious on how well mlton could optimise it. The language lacks custom let bindings, so I resorted to use Result.bind manually. This makes code much less readable and more verbose. The standard library also lacks result type, so I had to come up with my own simple implementation.... - Source: dev.to / about 1 year ago

If you’re fine with tracing GC (which depends on the situation, of course), Standard ML is a perfectly boring language (that IIUC predated and inspired Caml) and MLton[1] is a very nice optimizing compiler for it. The language is awkward at times (in particular, the separate sublanguage of modules can be downright unwieldy), and the library has some of the usual blind spots such as nonexistent Unicode support... - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago

Unfortunately, I haven't found a ton of "easily-digestible" and, at the same time, comprehensive guides on compiling functional languages. Generally you'll find a mix of blog posts/class notes/papers covering a single step. Some resources I like: - Andrew Kennedy's 2007 paper Compiling with Continuations, Continued [1]. This one is the most clear IMO - Andrew Appel's Compiling with Continuations book... - Source: Hacker News / about 2 years ago

More broadly, they can be fast even without such extensions if they aggressively pursue optimization opportunities afforded by static typing, like MLton for example, but that also impacts compilation performance negatively. Source: over 2 years ago

According to the OP, it's from http://mlton.org/ (see https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/#acknowledgements ). - Source: Hacker News / over 2 years ago

If you have been in the Ruby community for the past couple of years, it's possible that you're not a super fan of types or that this concept never passed through your mind, and that's totally cool. I myself love the dynamic and meta-programming nature of Ruby, and honestly, by the time of this article's writing, we aren't on the level of OCaml for type checking and inference, but still, there are a couple of nice... - Source: dev.to / 8 months ago

An amazing example is Ocaml lang logo / mascot. It might be useful to talk with them to know what was the process behind this work. The About page camel head on Perl dot org header is also a pretty good example of simplification, but it's not a logo, just a friendly illustration, as the O'Reilly camel is. Another notable logo for this animal is the well known tobacco industry company, but don't get me started on... - Source: dev.to / 10 months ago

Haskell and Agda are probably the most obvious examples. Ocaml too, but it is much older, so its type system is not as categorical. There is also Idris, which is not as well-known but is very cool. Source: 11 months ago

NEAT is a fascinating algorithm. I've been interested in it ever since SethBling made a video about it playing Mario and this series of experiments about a variant of NEAT that evolves in real-time rather than by-generation. I'm finally getting to be just good enough of a programmer that I am actually considering writing my own (probably in OCaml because there's an unfortunate lack of NEAT implementations in... Source: 12 months ago

Easier than haskell and easier for writing compilers: https://ocaml.org/. Source: 12 months ago