<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta name="robots" content="index,nofollow">
<title>OCaml - MLton Standard ML Compiler (SML Compiler)</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="iso-8859-1" media="all" href="common.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="iso-8859-1" media="screen" href="screen.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="iso-8859-1" media="print" href="print.css">
<link rel="Start" href="Home">
</head>
<body lang="en" dir="ltr">
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-833377-1";
urchinTracker();
</script>
<table bgcolor = lightblue cellspacing = 0 style = "border: 0px;" width = 100%>
<tr>
<td style = "
border: 0px;
color: darkblue;
font-size: 150%;
text-align: left;">
<a class = mltona href="Home">MLton MLTONWIKIVERSION</a>
<td style = "
border: 0px;
font-size: 150%;
text-align: center;
width: 50%;">
OCaml
<td style = "
border: 0px;
text-align: right;">
<table cellspacing = 0 style = "border: 0px">
<tr style = "vertical-align: middle;">
</table>
<tr style = "background-color: white;">
<td colspan = 3
style = "
border: 0px;
font-size:70%;
text-align: right;">
<a href = "Home">Home</a>
<a href = "TitleIndex">Index</a>
</table>
<div id="content" lang="en" dir="ltr">
<a class="external" href="http://caml.inria.fr/"><img src="moin-www.png" alt="[WWW]" height="11" width="11">OCaml</a> is a variant of <a href="ML">ML</a> and is similar to <a href="StandardML">Standard ML</a>. <h2 id="head-bdb603a1546c889e07912df83fb168fdc6469ce8">OCaml and SML</h2>
<p>
Here's a comparison of some aspects of the OCaml and SML languages.
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
Standard ML has a formal <a href="DefinitionOfStandardML">Definition</a>, while OCaml is specified by its lone implementation and informal documentation.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
Standard ML has a number of <a href="StandardMLImplementations">compilers</a>, while OCaml has only one.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
OCaml has built-in support for object-oriented programming, while Standard ML does not (however, see <a href="ObjectOrientedProgramming">ObjectOrientedProgramming</a>).
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
Andreas Rossberg has a <a class="external" href="http://www.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/sml-vs-ocaml.html"><img src="moin-www.png" alt="[WWW]" height="11" width="11">side-by-side comparison</a> of the syntax of SML and OCaml.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2 id="head-305cf7c02f3e0da3e842ba7d0bcefe80ed2dbfd1">OCaml and MLton</h2>
<p>
Here's a comparison of some aspects of OCaml and MLton.
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
Performance
</p>
</li>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
Both OCaml and MLton have excellent performance.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton performs extensive <a href="WholeProgramOptimization">WholeProgramOptimization</a>, which can provide substantial improvements in large, modular programs.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton uses native types, like 32-bit integers, without any penalty due to tagging or boxing. OCaml uses 31-bit integers with a penalty due to tagging, and 32-bit integers with a penalty due to boxing.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton uses native types, like 64-bit floats, without any penalty due to boxing. OCaml, in some situations, boxes 64-bit floats.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton represents arrays of all types unboxed. In OCaml, only arrays of 64-bit floats are unboxed, and then only when it is syntactically apparent.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton represents records compactly by reordering and packing the fields.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
In MLton, polymorphic and monomorphic code have the same performance. In OCaml, polymorphism can introduce a performance penalty.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
In MLton, module boundaries have no impact on performance. In OCaml, moving code between modules can cause a performance penalty.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton's <a href="ForeignFunctionInterface">ForeignFunctionInterface</a> is simpler than OCaml's.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
Tools
</p>
</li>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
OCaml has a debugger, while MLton does not.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
OCaml supports separate compilation, while MLton does not.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
OCaml compiles faster than MLton.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton supports profiling of both time and allocation.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<li class="gap">
<p>
Libraries
</p>
</li>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
OCaml has more available libraries.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<li class="gap">
<p>
Community
</p>
</li>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
OCaml has a larger community than MLton.
</p>
</li>
<li class="gap">
<p>
MLton has a very responsive <a class="external" href="http://www.mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton"><img src="moin-www.png" alt="[WWW]" height="11" width="11">developer list</a>.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
<hr>
Last edited on 2009-09-20 00:47:19 by <span title="v129-22-126-87.VCLIENT.CWRU.Edu">RanAriGur</span>.
</body></html>
