Re: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[Matthias B. <bl...@re...>]

Ken Friis Larsen wrote, replying to Bob Harper:
> 
> It is also clear (to me at least) that many of the participants in
> this discussion don't feel that they have as big a vote as you in
> these matters.  There might be different reasons for this felling: you
> are one of the authors of the Definition; or that we don't have
> time/skills/energy to participate in a revision of the Definition.

Please, no name-calling!   If Bob is willing to listen to SML implementers
and users when they ask for revisions, then this is a Good Thing precisely
because he can then cast his Big Vote with those concerns in mind.  It
is the nature of the beast that some voices end up being heard more widely
than others.  Asking Bob, and perhaps Robin or Mads or Dave to sit back
and watch is not realistic, IMO.

> > Second, many of the proposed revisions are entirely do-able within a
> > reasonable time frame.
> 
> That revisions are do-able does not necessitate revisions.

While this is true, the revisions are necessary anyway.  Nearly every major
implementation of SML has already departed in more or less significant ways
from the text of the definition.  If the definition does not accommodate change,
then it will simply become obsolete.  ML (the family) will then have many mutually
incompatible members which go by names such as SML/NJ, Ocaml, MoscowML, MLKit,
Poly/ML, MLj, MLWorks, and so on because no-one will care anymore about 
standard compliance.  I know that there are definite plans to go ahead and implement
some of the proposed things in SML/NJ. I can easily imagine that similar
sentiment exists in other "camps". Now is the chance to coordinate such
changes across all implementations (except one :-), effectively keeping the concept
of a _language_ that exists independently from any one particular implementation.
If the definition does not follow suit, then in not so long a future nobody
will care about it anymore.

> One of the main strengths of SML is that the language don't change all
> the time.
> 
> Our disagreement might boil down to what we mean by "a viable
> language"?  If you mean a viable *research* language then I might
> agree with you.

Actually, no.   There is no need for a "definition" in the first place if all
you care about is a research language.

> > 2. Standardization of a substantial set of libraries.
> 
> But we don't want to repeat the fiasco of the Standard Basis Library
> (for those involved, apologies for being so blunt).

What exactly is the "fiasco"?  (I like the SBL a lot, and I am not one of 
its designers.)

> I think that the process of designing libraries should be much more
> open, like for example SFRI:
>         http://srfi.schemers.org/
> This way the *users* of SML get a say as well.

Users can always write their own libraries and publish them.  If they are good,
then I am sure that the SML community as a whole will take notice and adopt them.
(I am very sceptical about the SFRI process in Scheme, btw.)

> To quote the Definition again, to which you are an author, you say
> (p. xiii):
> 
>    ... This is the first revised version, and we foresee no others.
> 
> This sentence gives me the felling that the other authors don't agree
> with you, when you say that "there is a crying need" for revision.

This was written in 1997 when there was still a strong expectation that SML
would be succeeded by ML2000.  We all know what happened to the latter, so
things have changed.

Matthias