5 ms·
I hardly think the lack of a cross language usage reference means that you lose all the benefits of static typing. I don't see F# as primarily a scripting lang
by brianberns 9y ago
I hardly think the lack of a cross language usage reference means that you lose all the benefits of static typing.
I don't see F# as primarily a scripting language at all. It builds executables just as well as C# does.
F# and C# classes are very compatible, since they're both .NET. If you expose F#-only features (e.g. currying), then obviously C# isn't going to be able to use your API as well.
- d--b 9y agoIt just adds up, and right now the combination of these annoyances outweighs the benefits of using F# for me.
- brianberns 9y agoThis is how my C# developers feel as well. Personally, I've concluded that F# is a more reasonable language than C#, so I see these "annoyances" as challenges that are not a big problem.
- bonesss 9y agoMiguel de Icaza commented on a trend they've seen with the C# devs on Mono/Xamarian that matches well with my experience: the C# devs who start using F# simply do not come back. F# is the first language built on top of a mature .Net framework, and it shows. Much of what has made C# become so great was pushed through the F# research group (remember when C# didn't have generics?... yeah...). It is not Microsofts favorite child. It will never be the implementation language of MS's next GUI platform du jour. Personally, looking at old XAML, Silverlight, EF1, EF2, EF3, EF4, EF5, and EF6 projects... [oh hey, EF7 is out, and it _still_ has no second level cache story! Back to NHibernate everybody!... again!] ... I do not think it's a bad thing to have some distance between production and Microsofts first-run attempts at products.