[Shootout-list] request to put MLton on "The Usual" page

[Stephen Weeks]

My apologies for the slow followup.

> However, isn't SML/NJ the 'standard' that other SML's try to comply
> with?

Quite the opposite.  The standard is given by a book that all other
implementations besides SML/NJ try to comply with.  SML/NJ is the
exception, and most of its deviations from the standard are not
supported by other SML compilers.

> Do you think people would expect to see SML/NJ as 'the' SML
> implementation in a short list of representative languages?

Some yes, some no.  If I had to guess, I'd say that there are more
SML/NJ users than MLton users for historical reasons, but that the
trend is toward MLton.

> Let's set aside the number of solutions for the moment.  If SML/NJ
> and MLton had the same number of solutions on the site, would you
> still think MLton would be more representative of SML than SML/NJ?

Yes, because the shootout is a performance-oriented site.

> Do other people think we should use 'The Usual' to show the best
> performers for all languages, or would it be better to show the
> 'best known' implementations for various languages?
>
> I'm sort of leaning towards the former (which would mean moving
> MLton to 'The Usual' instead of SML/NJ).

I think "best performers" makes more sense, both because of the focus
of the shootout, and the fact that it is less subjective than "best
known".

> 'The Usual' is intended for people who've never heard of SML or
> Haskell.
> 
> Which SML implementation would you present to them? 

I would present to them both SML/NJ and MLton, as they would be
substantially lacking without both.