RE: [Sml-implementers] Subject: Standard ML

[Dave B. <da...@ta...>]

At 07:20 27/09/2001, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
>SML is not yet dead
>...
>(In no particular order)
>Moscow ML, SML/NJ, TILT, Church Project, MLton, Poly-ML, 
>MLj, SML.NET

I'm having another attempt to get Global Graphics Software (ne Harlequin)
to release the source of MLWorks.  But I'm not going to hold my breath
while I'm waiting.

Actually, I don't take the number of implementations to be such a sign of
strength as you do.  While it shows that the Definition of SML is a great
standard to co-ordinate implementations of the language, the paucity of
libraries suggest that the language is not so great for users.  (The slogan
could be: "So many compilers, so few users").

I hope that we can agree on the compilation management and FFI issues.
Then people will be able to share libraries between all these
implementations, and SML might get more users.

Dave.