Yes, I would definitely consider it a language in the ML-family. Its core is based on Hindley-Milner (like StandardML, OCaml, and Haskell) which I think is the hallmark of ML-family languages. Flix sits neatly between Ocaml and Haskell in that it allows side-effects (like Ocaml, unlike Haskell) but they are tracked by the effect system. Hence one can program in the spectrum between those two languages, but get strong guarantees from the compiler.
In terms of adoption, we see a lot of people trying it out, and there are some packages out there already, but nothing too big yet. We recently added support for package management, so hopefully that will help the community grow.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to ask whether you considered Flix "an ML" as opposed to just being in the ML family. It's an ontological question, and not important, so don't sweat the answer. I am just curious how Flix developers see their project.
Yes, I would definitely consider it a language in the ML-family. Its core is based on Hindley-Milner (like StandardML, OCaml, and Haskell) which I think is the hallmark of ML-family languages. Flix sits neatly between Ocaml and Haskell in that it allows side-effects (like Ocaml, unlike Haskell) but they are tracked by the effect system. Hence one can program in the spectrum between those two languages, but get strong guarantees from the compiler.
In terms of adoption, we see a lot of people trying it out, and there are some packages out there already, but nothing too big yet. We recently added support for package management, so hopefully that will help the community grow.