>If you need `With` functionality, then add the following member: Without it it's useless - and do that example when fields aren't named X, Y, Z but have actua

>If you need `With` functionality, then add the following member: Without it it's useless - and do that example when fields aren't named X, Y, Z but have actual descriptive property names + 5-10 properties like DB tables. It gets ridiculous really fast. >Do you have an example? Record types, result piping (best you can do is extension methods - again boilerplate), pattern matching, etc. I recently wrote a C# report integration service - it was a C# service that connected to a DB at specific time intervals, did a bunch of data transformations then passed it off to different services over file system or TCP. Wrote it functional style with C# (immutable collections, record types, static functions). I then rewrote the same project in F# because I wanted how much simpler the code would be in practice - off the top of my head I managed to reduce a ~20k LOC project filled with boilerplate to ~6k LOC of pure business logic data transformation and protocol specific data formatting. IIRC I had 5 logically grouped source files in F# that had connected logic inside of them (ie. record types were "one liners" defined in the same file they were used not a separate file like the C# tediousness) The resulting code was easier to read because there was just less crap, easier to test from REPL/debug isolated issues and unit test. C# is not Java but it's still ridiculously verbose for high level programming.