Re: MLton's GC

Stephen J. Bevan wrote:
>> 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?

I get the impression from subsequent posts that you mean this in a
GC-specific way.

I think the answer is yes: all functional languages require a GC similar
to
Lisp's. You're quite right that there is some variation "under the hood"
when things become purely functional. Things are probably also made
slightly easier by not having a meta-circular evaluator because you no
longer need to be able to garbage collect code.

Beyond garbage collection, there are lots of fundamental differences
between
functional languages, of course.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u