Re: MLton's GC

George Neuner <gneuner2/@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Oops!  I misread the outline document for the Hertfordshire lecture,
> which mentions MLWorks, LispWorks and DylanWorks, but in reference to
> the problems MPS was designed to solve rather than held as examples.
> So I may be mistaken about ML.
> http://www.ravenbrook.com/project/mps/doc/2004-12-01/herts-talk/

At the point when the MLWorks project was shutdown the GC was still
the one that Richard and Nick wrote specifically for MLWorks before
MPS existed.  They both left Harlequin at least a year before that
point and whatever momentum there may have been (and I'm not sure
there really was much) to replace the MLWorks GC with MPS essentially
dropped to zero when they left.


> However, Dylan is still a Scheme is still a Lisp.

Aren't all functional languages a Lisp then?  Or is there something
different about some functional languages (Haskell?) which makes their
GC requirements different?