I'd say Standard ML better fits the bill of "dead simple". The only issue is that tooling and learning resources are nearly nonexistent.
Care to elaborate? What are you referring to?
- First-class modules don't feel very first class, with how clunky it is to use modules at the value level
- Records are very clunky and hacky to use
- Generative functors are a hack
- Special language-level equality magic is awful (although SML also has this problem)
- Special `let` forms (whether via ppx or integrated into the language) feel really hacky
- GADTs require too much handholding of the typechecker
- All the "Objective" parts have very few redeeming qualities and should probably never have existed
- The way infix operators work is really half-assed
I don't think OCaml is a _bad_ language - it's very practically useful. It's just not simple or elegant.
By the way, the Successor ML wiki says[1]:
> Standard ML, being incapable of evolution, is dead. The purpose of successor ML, or sML for short, is to provide a vehicle for the continued evolution of ML, using Standard ML as a starting point. The intention is for successor ML to be a living, evolving dialect of ML that is responsive to community needs and advances in language design, implementation, and semantics.
Again, I stand by my statement that Standard ML is dead.
[1] https://smlfamily.github.io/successor-ml/OldSuccessorMLWiki/...
(1) Successor ML is happening,
(2) Standard ML is alive and evolving,
(3) SML/NJ isn’t just an implementation but a distinct language which is a successor to Standard ML and which incorporates what was described as “Successor ML”.