It's weird to call it anomalous ML came first in the programming sphere.
What you said is that it's not powerful or expressive enough, but my impression was that they were both expressible in terms of System Fω, an understanding I would like to correct if it's wrong.
>Eilenberg and Lane introduced functors (in the sense more or less used by Haskell) in the 40s.
Yes.
>This is not correct anymore - Fω is insufficient to describe GADTs. You need coercions and equality constraints as well.
Of course, OCaml has GADTs these days. I suppose neither of them are really Fω anymore, then.
>It's also approximately as useful a claim as "the languages are equally powerful because they're both Turing complete".
Agree to disagree. I think when discussing how powerful a language is, a rigorous notion like Turing completeness or position on the lambda cube is still significant, even if it's not the most immediately visible.
>I'm referring to practicability, not theoretical possibility (and I've clarified as much several times now).
Fair enough, I'll chalk this up to a misunderstanding.
What you said is that it's not powerful or expressive enough, but my impression was that they were both expressible in terms of System Fω, an understanding I would like to correct if it's wrong.