RE: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[Stephen W. <sw...@in...>]

> Portability will result only if the libraries are well designed, and 
> implemented carefully in SML, not in C. All too often I have been 
> thwarted from using SML code because it depends, e.g., on 
> non-portable C code, on a UNIX system call, on a specific pathname 
> syntax, or on system specific line termination.
> 
> Real portability should be a goal if we want SML to succeed. We want 
> SML to be used on a wide variety of systems of the future, e.g., 
> multi-processor servers, PDAs, wearable computers, cell phones, etc., 
> not just on researchers' workstations.

I agree with your assessment that writing as much code as possible in SML and
careful library design will help.  I also agree with your goal of portability.
I would like to point out that we were using "portability" in two different
senses: across-compiler and across-platform.  I was talking about the former
while you were talking about the later.  As I only run on a single platform, I
tend to forget about across-platform, so thanks for reminding me.  I think that
both senses of portability are important.

Unfortunately, there is a lot that can not be done in SML + the standard basis
library, and even if we add more libraries, this will always be the case.  So,
an across-compiler portable C FFI is important.