Re: [Sml-implementers] Subject: Standard ML

[Dave M. <db...@cs...>]

As one who has invested a lot of effort in Standard ML, I agree
wholeheartedly with Bob's reply to Robin and Mads.  A living language will
evolve -- only dead languages remain fixed.

I should point out that the adjective "Standard" turned out to be an
unfortunate choice.  It represented a hope that has clearly not been
bourne out by later developments in the ML community, which is now
regretably divided into two camps.  Perhaps we should let Robin and
Mads keep "Standard", and choose a better adjective to reflect a
renewal of purpose.

While evolution, and hopefully growth, must happen, I agree that we
must go forward together, which requires careful discussion and open
minds, followed up with joint effort.  The current dialogs on
sml-implementers are a good start.

We must at least avoid further fragmentation of the ???? ML camp if we
are going to have a chance of practical success.

Dave MacQueen


> From:  Robert Harper <Rob...@cs...>
> To:    sml...@li...
> Cc:    Rob...@cl...
> Date:  Tue, 25 Sep 2001 22:26:28 EDT
> Subject: RE: [Sml-implementers] Subject: Standard ML

> No language, natural or artificial, can remain static, if it is used at all;
> it will evolve whether we like it or not.  The question is how we manage
> that evolution.
> 
> There are at least six serious implementations of Standard ML, representing
> a substantial commitment by a substantial community to its continuing
> vitality.  At present these implementations different in important ways,
> particularly in the treatment of separate compilation and in libraries, but
> also in correcting deficiencies and making extensions to the language.  It
> is vital that we harmonize them.  It is also vital that we, as a community,
> discuss possible paths of evolution to keep pace with the world around us.
> 
> The community has a choice.  We can either go our separate ways, dissipating
> our efforts, and bring a rapid end to there being any community at all.  Or
> we can decide that it is in our best interest to work together to guide the
> ongoing and inevitable evolution of Standard ML through a community process
> that preserves the existence of a common language, preserves the community
> that has arisen around it, and nurtures a set of ideas that have inspired
> and substantially engaged us all.
> 
> It is not for me, nor any one person, to decide, but for us all collectively
> to determine whether we will go forward separately or together.  For my
> part, I can see no profit in attempting to suppress the process, but
> enormous gain in fostering and guiding it.
> 
> Bob Harper
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Milner [mailto:Rob...@cl...]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:22 AM
> To: sml...@li...
> Cc: Rob...@cl...
> Subject: [Sml-implementers] Subject: Standard ML
> 
> 
> 
> We are authors of Standard ML, both 1990 and 1997; we also wrote
> the Commentary.   
> 
> We welcome standardisation of matters not covered by the 
> Definition of Standard ML, such as libraries and separate compilation.
> 
> We also welcome language designs built on Standard ML; they may 
> proclaim membership of the ML family, as for example CAML does.
> 
> However, we will not accept further revision of Standard ML.  It 
> is natural that people discuss changes and new features, and thus
> that successors of the language will arise.  We expect, however,
> the designers of any successor language to make it clear that
> their language is not Standard ML. 
>  
> With regards
> Robin Milner, Mads Tofte
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sml-implementers mailing list
> Sml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sml-implementers
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sml-implementers mailing list
> Sml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sml-implementers