1ml

> a downside of this approach is that you sacrifice late binding, as the module language and "core" language are stratified into different layers https://people.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/1ml/1ml-extended.pdf https://github.com/rossberg/1ml

This is an oldie but a goodie. I remember reading this page making up my mind when choosing between the two. OCaml has, unlike Standard ML, grown quite a lot since this page was made. In particular, the section "Standard libraries", I'd recommend looking at: https://dev.realworldocaml.org/ A couple of places where the comparison is outdated: - OCaml using Base [1] allows for result-type oriented programming - OCaml using Base uses less language magic and more module system While there was and is truth to the distinction that SML is for scientists and OCaml is for engineers, this dichotomy is getting dated: OCaml is under active development, which means that scientists who want better tooling will choose OCaml. For example, 1ML [2] by Andreas Rossberg was built in OCaml. [1]: https://opensource.janestreet.com/base/ [2]: https://github.com/

Not much I don't think. This has a few examples: https://github.com/rossberg/1ml There isn't special module syntax. Modules are more-or-less just structs, and the structs can contain types.

I dabbled with AliceML a long time ago and it was fun! But I think Rossberg has since moved on, and his latest attempt at a "better ML design" should be 1ML[0]. [0] https://github.com/rossberg/1ml

Andreas Rossberg's 1ML is (was?) an effort to unify the module syntax with that of functions and values (https://people.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/papers/Rossberg%20-%201..., https://github.com/rossberg/1ml) The module syntax is certainly clumsy in comparison to the rest of the language, and it's not just the syntax - everything about functor arguments is a bit murky.