+''(Tutorial's are good, this is supposed to be an interesting place to go and learn stuff from, however, not all these concepts are exclusively ML, for instance StaticallyTyped, HigherOrder, PolyMorphic, Functional, StandardisedLanguage , are all attributes of other programming languages too, breaking these out into their own pages would be educational no? -- PerryLorier)'' 

+ML is a family of StaticallyTyped[1], [strict | StrictEvaluation][4] [ higher-order | HigherOrderFunctions] [2], polymorphic[3], [FunctionalLanguage ]s with and a higher-order module system[5]. ML is very good general purpose programming language[6] with a strength in pattern matching[7]. ML can be used interactively for learning, experimentation and testing, or it can be compiled. The two major dialects of ML are [Ocaml] and [SML]. SML is a standardised language[8] with several implementations[9]. Ocaml has a single open source implementation[10], it extends ML with an OOP system[11]. Both major dialects have compilers that produce native code that rivals the speed of C++, and extensive standard[12] and third-party[13] libraries. 

+ on a strip of TuringMachine tape as the memory. *) 

+ __if__ byte = 0 __then__ tape  

+ __else__ step (step_sequence (tape, body), op) 

+This is what prevents ML's strong type checking from being a pain in the bum. You don't have to define the type of everything ''exactly'', you can leave some types, or parts of some types unspecified. For example this is a type for binary trees: 

+Higher-order functions are functions that take other functions as parameters, create functions or return functions. 

+There's a lot more things you can do with higher-order functions, some of them very painful. I've just shown you there's at least ''one'' good thing you can do with then here. 

+ML uses StrictEvaluation . This means that ML can allow reassignable variables and a conventional I/O system -- and it does. 

+''[Haskell]'s main semantic difference from ML is that is it uses LazyEvaluation . If you enjoyed Haskell programming at WaikatoUniversity but because exasperated with [Monad]s and working out convoluted ways to make your programs preserve state, ML may be the thing for you.'' 

+ # __module__ !StringSet = Set.Make(String);;  

+ ''module !StringSet :'' 

+The type system means that even when I just sit down and hack, I get good quality code.  

+  

+* I can leave out type definitions. This lets me program in the succinct, flexible way I can in [Python], without the let-down of having all my type errors pop up a runtime.  

+  

+* The type system is very expressive. It encourages a style of programming where you think about your data, what it consists of and how you will transform it. Programs designed by type tend to be very modular, they almost have to be by definition.  

+  

+* The type system is very exact. It allowed the compiler to spot many big, logical errors at compile time, and well as the little nit-picky syntactic ones.  

+  

+ ''(more to say..)'' 

+Pattern matching is ML's strength. ML has an expression that is halfway between [C]'s__switch__ and declaration statements. In SML it is called __case__ and in Ocaml it is called __match__. Instead matching a value with single constants, like the __switch__ statement, __match__ can match values of any complexity by example, and select parts of the value to assign to variables as it does it.  

+  

+__Match__ statements are very clear and compact.  

+  

+ ''(example to come ...)'' 

+'' The Basis library is indeed very well designed, but for SML/NJ (one of the major SML compilers) it is poorly documented, making it somewhat difficult to use. --GianPerrone'' %%%  

+''The Basis Library pages I've linked to above seem adequate to me. Or those not what you are talking about? --GlynWebster''