> Coalton [1] is an OCaml-like dialect of ML: it's strictly evaluated, has imperative features, and doesn't force a purity-based development philosophy.
OCaml is also strictly evaluated, has imperative features (e.g. ref), and doesn't force a purity-based development philosophy.
What makes you call Coalton a "dialect of ML"? ML's module system is its defining feature, beyond that there's really not much unique about it (by design). Would you call any language with algebraic data types a "dialect of ML"?
EDIT: I'm picking on this one sentence, but the rest of your comment is a good overview of the language, thanks.
That's why I said it's "OCaml-like" followed by a colon: to highlight the similarities.
As for why it's an ML dialect, maybe (maybe not) it's more fair to call it "ML-inspired". Nonetheless, it's similar enough to the ML family to be understood by ML programmers. But yes, one of the major pillars of ML—the module system—is conspicuously absent in favor of Haskell-like type classes.
OCaml is also strictly evaluated, has imperative features (e.g. ref), and doesn't force a purity-based development philosophy.
What makes you call Coalton a "dialect of ML"? ML's module system is its defining feature, beyond that there's really not much unique about it (by design). Would you call any language with algebraic data types a "dialect of ML"?
EDIT: I'm picking on this one sentence, but the rest of your comment is a good overview of the language, thanks.