3 ms·

Don Syme, creator of the F# language, wrote to an OCaml mailing list about how hard it was to get generics into the CLR. How MSCorp viewed it as "academic" and

Don Syme, creator of the F# language, wrote to an OCaml mailing list about how hard it was to get generics into the CLR. How MSCorp viewed it as "academic" and "experimental". Despite that what he was doing was basically implementing ideas from the 70s into a modern system. It's strange how anyone would look back and think the language ideas from back then are all useless. Or that there's significantly new stuff going on now in mainstream implementations.

WalterGR 11y ago
Don Syme, creator of the F# language, wrote to an OCaml mailing list about how hard it was to get generics into the CLR. How MSCorp viewed it as "academic" and "experimental". Link?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2006/11/d921ca59f12d434a3f005dfd07256d91.en.html http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2006/11/d921c... Don Syme's blog has some more details on how deeply MSR got involved to ship generics. MS Corp simply wasn't capable or interested. This gets revised when talking to folks today - claims that oh yeah, Delphi++ was always gonna do generics right. But in truth, it seems they weren't going to make it without MSR's (F# team overlaps with the generics team) help. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2011/03/15/net-c-generics-history-some-photos-from-feb-1999.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2011/03/15/net-c-gener... It's incredibly frustrating to see, even as an outsider. Having the patience, tact, and political savvy to pull this off? It's pretty impressive. But did MS learn? Nope. F# is still a second-class citizen, with only token support. F# still isn't marketed as "generally better than C#", but still aimed at "niche" users. It's sad. MS language tech is pretty much stagnated for 8 years now. Feels like IE all over again. They trounced their major competitor (Java), so now they can kick back and add minor stuff here and there because there's no pressure.
  - WalterGR 11y ago
    Interesting, thanks. I didn't understand how Don Syme needed to convince Microsoft since he is part of Microsoft. From the blog: > Generics for .NET and C# in their current form almost didn't happen: it was a very close call, and the feature almost didn't make the cut for Whidbey (Visual Studio 2005). Features such as running CLR code on the database were given higher priority. > ... > Ultimately, an erasure model of generics would have been adopted, as for Java, since the CLR team would never have pursued a in-the-VM generics design without external help. I have no particular reason to doubt his perspective - and I certainly don't have any inside knowledge - but a feature not making the cut for version N doesn't always imply that a shitty version would have been implemented in version N+1. > The world is as it is today because we act when we have the chance to act, and because we invest in foundations that last the test of time. Could this be a case of the victors getting to write the canonical history? MS language tech is pretty much stagnated for 8 years now. Feels like IE all over again. Nah. Sure, C# 6.0 is largely smaller tweaks here and there, but by all measures the team has been busy with Rosyln, which is huge. Out of curiosity, are there language features that you think should be added to C#? For C# to be like IE, the world would need to have moved on and C# would have to be behind in this new world. It doesn't seem like that's the case. And compared to Java, C# moves at a pace that's absolutely breakneck. What has Java gotten in the pat 8 years? Crappy not-closures? They trounced their major competitor (Java) Microsoft may have trounced Java-on-Windows, but overall Java is more popular than C# by a significant margin.
    - mahyarm 11y ago
      > I didn't understand how Don Syme needed to convince Microsoft since he is part of Microsoft. You haven't had to convince other engineers in your company to adopt a new practice or management to build a new structure?
      - WalterGR 11y ago
        Of course I have - including when I was at Microsoft. The difference is that I don't refer to my employer in the third person. I thought the phrasing was strange. It confused me why he needed to convince Microsoft ("MSCorp") since he is a part of Microsoft. Reading the blog post linked in the comment I was replying to brought the needed clarity: he was talking about convincing Microsoft-not-Microsoft-Research ("MSCorp") while he was at Microsoft Research.

WalterGR 11y ago

Don Syme, creator of the F# language, wrote to an OCaml mailing list about how hard it was to get generics into the CLR. How MSCorp viewed it as "academic" and "experimental". Link?

MichaelGG 11y ago
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2006/11/d921ca59f12d434a3f005dfd07256d91.en.html http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2006/11/d921c... Don Syme's blog has some more details on how deeply MSR got involved to ship generics. MS Corp simply wasn't capable or interested. This gets revised when talking to folks today - claims that oh yeah, Delphi++ was always gonna do generics right. But in truth, it seems they weren't going to make it without MSR's (F# team overlaps with the generics team) help. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2011/03/15/net-c-generics-history-some-photos-from-feb-1999.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2011/03/15/net-c-gener... It's incredibly frustrating to see, even as an outsider. Having the patience, tact, and political savvy to pull this off? It's pretty impressive. But did MS learn? Nope. F# is still a second-class citizen, with only token support. F# still isn't marketed as "generally better than C#", but still aimed at "niche" users. It's sad. MS language tech is pretty much stagnated for 8 years now. Feels like IE all over again. They trounced their major competitor (Java), so now they can kick back and add minor stuff here and there because there's no pressure.
- WalterGR 11y ago
  Interesting, thanks. I didn't understand how Don Syme needed to convince Microsoft since he is part of Microsoft. From the blog: > Generics for .NET and C# in their current form almost didn't happen: it was a very close call, and the feature almost didn't make the cut for Whidbey (Visual Studio 2005). Features such as running CLR code on the database were given higher priority. > ... > Ultimately, an erasure model of generics would have been adopted, as for Java, since the CLR team would never have pursued a in-the-VM generics design without external help. I have no particular reason to doubt his perspective - and I certainly don't have any inside knowledge - but a feature not making the cut for version N doesn't always imply that a shitty version would have been implemented in version N+1. > The world is as it is today because we act when we have the chance to act, and because we invest in foundations that last the test of time. Could this be a case of the victors getting to write the canonical history? MS language tech is pretty much stagnated for 8 years now. Feels like IE all over again. Nah. Sure, C# 6.0 is largely smaller tweaks here and there, but by all measures the team has been busy with Rosyln, which is huge. Out of curiosity, are there language features that you think should be added to C#? For C# to be like IE, the world would need to have moved on and C# would have to be behind in this new world. It doesn't seem like that's the case. And compared to Java, C# moves at a pace that's absolutely breakneck. What has Java gotten in the pat 8 years? Crappy not-closures? They trounced their major competitor (Java) Microsoft may have trounced Java-on-Windows, but overall Java is more popular than C# by a significant margin.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    > I didn't understand how Don Syme needed to convince Microsoft since he is part of Microsoft. You haven't had to convince other engineers in your company to adopt a new practice or management to build a new structure?
    - WalterGR 11y ago
      Of course I have - including when I was at Microsoft. The difference is that I don't refer to my employer in the third person. I thought the phrasing was strange. It confused me why he needed to convince Microsoft ("MSCorp") since he is a part of Microsoft. Reading the blog post linked in the comment I was replying to brought the needed clarity: he was talking about convincing Microsoft-not-Microsoft-Research ("MSCorp") while he was at Microsoft Research.