MLton VS Poly/ML

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

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

> I hope something similar comes to common lisp. When you say "something similar", what are you thinking about? Simply this rather professional presentation, or something social, or something technical? Or the fact of a renaissance? Is this sort of revamp a cause or a symptom of a renaissance? For Common Lisp it's always seemed to me that SBCL (disclaimer: never used it, only read about it) is the "modern" option... - Source: Hacker News / about 2 years ago