Never could adapt to OCaml's undisciplined syntax. SML's is clean. MLTon is very nice with a couple of limitations, practical upper bound of program size and

Never could adapt to OCaml's undisciplined syntax. SML's is clean. MLTon is very nice with a couple of limitations, practical upper bound of program size and compilation times. One of the co-authors, S. Weeks, was (is?) one of the core MLTon compiler developers. If feasible they certainly could have evolved the compiler and the SML language. Somewhat interesting is F# lost out to Ocaml in a bakeoff. In a way Jane St. has got themselves in a bit of a corner. I don't see how Ocaml is substantially less moribund then SML. Here is an interesting thought to mull over. With the upcoming 2.8 Scala compiler _every_ substantive feature of (S/C)ML is available with equal or higher capability. In other words, strike out use of objects in Scala and one is left with the most advanced (and active) MLs around. Hmm...