Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
7f918cf1 CE |
1 | OCaml |
2 | ===== | |
3 | ||
4 | http://caml.inria.fr/[OCaml] is a variant of <:ML:> and is similar to | |
5 | <:StandardML:Standard ML>. | |
6 | ||
7 | == OCaml and SML == | |
8 | ||
9 | Here's a comparison of some aspects of the OCaml and SML languages. | |
10 | ||
11 | * Standard ML has a formal <:DefinitionOfStandardML:Definition>, while | |
12 | OCaml is specified by its lone implementation and informal | |
13 | documentation. | |
14 | ||
15 | * Standard ML has a number of <:StandardMLImplementations:compilers>, | |
16 | while OCaml has only one. | |
17 | ||
18 | * OCaml has built-in support for object-oriented programming, while | |
19 | Standard ML does not (however, see <:ObjectOrientedProgramming:>). | |
20 | ||
21 | * Andreas Rossberg has a | |
22 | http://www.mpi-sws.org/%7Erossberg/sml-vs-ocaml.html[side-by-side | |
23 | comparison] of the syntax of SML and OCaml. | |
24 | ||
25 | * Adam Chlipala has a | |
26 | http://adam.chlipala.net/mlcomp[point-by-point comparison] of OCaml | |
27 | and SML. | |
28 | ||
29 | == OCaml and MLton == | |
30 | ||
31 | Here's a comparison of some aspects of OCaml and MLton. | |
32 | ||
33 | * Performance | |
34 | ||
35 | ** Both OCaml and MLton have excellent performance. | |
36 | ||
37 | ** MLton performs extensive <:WholeProgramOptimization:>, which can | |
38 | provide substantial improvements in large, modular programs. | |
39 | ||
40 | ** MLton uses native types, like 32-bit integers, without any penalty | |
41 | due to tagging or boxing. OCaml uses 31-bit integers with a penalty | |
42 | due to tagging, and 32-bit integers with a penalty due to boxing. | |
43 | ||
44 | ** MLton uses native types, like 64-bit floats, without any penalty | |
45 | due to boxing. OCaml, in some situations, boxes 64-bit floats. | |
46 | ||
47 | ** MLton represents arrays of all types unboxed. In OCaml, only | |
48 | arrays of 64-bit floats are unboxed, and then only when it is | |
49 | syntactically apparent. | |
50 | ||
51 | ** MLton represents records compactly by reordering and packing the | |
52 | fields. | |
53 | ||
54 | ** In MLton, polymorphic and monomorphic code have the same | |
55 | performance. In OCaml, polymorphism can introduce a performance | |
56 | penalty. | |
57 | ||
58 | ** In MLton, module boundaries have no impact on performance. In | |
59 | OCaml, moving code between modules can cause a performance penalty. | |
60 | ||
61 | ** MLton's <:ForeignFunctionInterface:> is simpler than OCaml's. | |
62 | ||
63 | * Tools | |
64 | ||
65 | ** OCaml has a debugger, while MLton does not. | |
66 | ||
67 | ** OCaml supports separate compilation, while MLton does not. | |
68 | ||
69 | ** OCaml compiles faster than MLton. | |
70 | ||
71 | ** MLton supports profiling of both time and allocation. | |
72 | ||
73 | * Libraries | |
74 | ||
75 | ** OCaml has more available libraries. | |
76 | ||
77 | * Community | |
78 | ||
79 | ** OCaml has a larger community than MLton. | |
80 | ||
81 | ** MLton has a very responsive | |
82 | http://www.mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton[developer list]. |