4 ms·

> if isGenTypeOf typedefof<_ option> then Wow! This code looks horrible. Why don't you just accept the fact that the language is strongly typed and abolish ref

> if isGenTypeOf typedefof<_ option> then Wow! This code looks horrible. Why don't you just accept the fact that the language is strongly typed and abolish reflection altogether?

burgerdev 9y ago
I apologize for the tone of my comment, but still think that ML is not supposed to be written like that.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  Agreed for ML. However, F# is not exactly ML. It lives on top of, and has to interoperate with, the existing .NET ecosystem. That means, for example, that a lot of the datatypes you'll end up dealing with are object-oriented. Those can be difficult to work with in a generic way without resorting to reflection.
  - burgerdev 9y ago
    Sounds a bit like the Scala story: could be a really nice language, but the bagagge ... :)
    - bunderbunder 9y ago
      It is a really nice language. Being able to interoperate with .NET is a strength, not a weakness. It's quite principled in its design, it's just that some of its design principles are pragmatic ones. Concrete example: It doesn't have typeclasses. This was a deliberate and thoughtful move. The designers haven't been able to figure out how to implement type classes in a way that wouldn't interact poorly with the rest of the .NET ecosystem, so they've opted to keep them out rather than introducing a hacky implementation. Contrast this with Scala, where it's very easy to accidentally break compatibility with Java code when you're working with traits.
      - catnaroek 9y ago
        > Concrete example: It doesn't have typeclasses. It's not like type classes are themselves suuuper-principled. > Being able to interoperate with .NET is a strength, not a weakness. Being able to interoperate with .NET is a good thing. Letting the .NET object model permeate the whole language's type structure is less of a good thing (to put it mildly). OCaml did the right thing w.r.t. objects: You can use objects if you so wish, but the language doesn't ram them down your throat.
        tueo23094 9y ago
        F# and OCaml are different languages with different goals. It should come as no surprise there are different sacrifices between the languages. Breaking compatibility with .NET, which is F#'s biggest benefit is counter productive.
        catnaroek 9y ago
        My suggestion wouldn't “break compatibility” with .NET any more than, say, C++/CLI (or whatever it is called nowadays) does.
      - vittore 9y ago
        Wait it has https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/discriminated-unions https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-refe...
        dualogy 9y ago
        Those are essentially ADTs --- not "type-classes" in the ML/Haskell/etc sense at all.

> if isGenTypeOf typedefof<_ option> then Wow! This code looks horrible. Why don't you just accept the fact that the language is strongly typed and abolish reflection altogether?

burgerdev 9y ago

I apologize for the tone of my comment, but still think that ML is not supposed to be written like that.

bunderbunder 9y ago
Agreed for ML. However, F# is not exactly ML. It lives on top of, and has to interoperate with, the existing .NET ecosystem. That means, for example, that a lot of the datatypes you'll end up dealing with are object-oriented. Those can be difficult to work with in a generic way without resorting to reflection.
- burgerdev 9y ago
  Sounds a bit like the Scala story: could be a really nice language, but the bagagge ... :)
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    It is a really nice language. Being able to interoperate with .NET is a strength, not a weakness. It's quite principled in its design, it's just that some of its design principles are pragmatic ones. Concrete example: It doesn't have typeclasses. This was a deliberate and thoughtful move. The designers haven't been able to figure out how to implement type classes in a way that wouldn't interact poorly with the rest of the .NET ecosystem, so they've opted to keep them out rather than introducing a hacky implementation. Contrast this with Scala, where it's very easy to accidentally break compatibility with Java code when you're working with traits.
    - catnaroek 9y ago
      > Concrete example: It doesn't have typeclasses. It's not like type classes are themselves suuuper-principled. > Being able to interoperate with .NET is a strength, not a weakness. Being able to interoperate with .NET is a good thing. Letting the .NET object model permeate the whole language's type structure is less of a good thing (to put it mildly). OCaml did the right thing w.r.t. objects: You can use objects if you so wish, but the language doesn't ram them down your throat.
      - tueo23094 9y ago
        F# and OCaml are different languages with different goals. It should come as no surprise there are different sacrifices between the languages. Breaking compatibility with .NET, which is F#'s biggest benefit is counter productive.
        catnaroek 9y ago
        My suggestion wouldn't “break compatibility” with .NET any more than, say, C++/CLI (or whatever it is called nowadays) does.
    - vittore 9y ago
      Wait it has https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/discriminated-unions https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-refe...
      - dualogy 9y ago
        Those are essentially ADTs --- not "type-classes" in the ML/Haskell/etc sense at all.