doc/guide/src/OCaml.adoc

   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].