Could you justify this assertion? Here[1] is an analysis by Andreas Rossberg that indicates that this isn't the case.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/23019436

I was thinking about the statement

   1ML is a user-friendly surface syntax for System Fω 

in the paper's abstract. I think Fω lives inside Scala. But, as the stackexchange article you cite shows, I should have been more careful in my statement.

Scala is complex, and SML is pretty simple. (I haven't studied 1ML beyond the elevator pitch, which claims it's "minimal and uniform".) A very complex language with a large installed base can't offer simplicity.

Even more than being complex, it is also a JVM language. That has both benefits and drawbacks. Interaction with the Java language and runtime brings complexities to it.

Granted, I haven't used Scala since, err, 1.7 days? I think. I liked it, and did a lot of work in it in fact, but more as an alternative to Java.

If I didn't have to worry about compatibility with Java or the proven nature of the JVM, or satisfy sysadmins and management with the orthodox Java-ness of my runtime, I'm not sure I'd pick Scala.

I'd never have left the ML world had it not been for the lack of an ecosystem that's comparable to what the JVM has to offer. And my Scala programs mostly just use ML-like features, but I can't live without all those rich libraries that are lacking in ML.

Yeti is pretty nice if you have to work on the JVM: http://mth.github.io/yeti/

That project looks dead, the last commit was November 2013?

The last tagged release was November 2013. The last commit was this week.

Last time I looked into OCaml it seemed to have most of everything I'd need for most projects.

But I think it'd be hard to find an employer willing to pay me to work in it.