3 ms·

You are not wrong. In fact I would argue it would be very hard to learn F# without knowing C# even if resources did not assume you did, since one of F#'s major

You are not wrong. In fact I would argue it would be very hard to learn F# without knowing C# even if resources did not assume you did, since one of F#'s major strengths is the ability to use the entire .NET ecosystem just like Clojure as you said, and the .NET ecosystem is written for C# semantics (usable from F# but generally with some slight syntax switching). On the tooling front, Microsoft include it as a prime language with C# and VB.NET in dotnet core, and ship F# tools with their latest IDEs, which I appreciate and is almost more than I would expect, since their flagship is C#. It would be nice if it was better, but that would require it to be a lot more popular which is fair enough. Static binaries are something that would be real nice. I've done it with F# using CoreRT, but its certainly not as simple as Go.

pjmlp 7y ago
Not really prime still, not even on .NET Core, there are several VS tools that only work with C# and VB.NET. CLR is multiple language runtime and actually the only language that has full control over all possible bytecodes is C++/CLI, not C#. CoreRT is on its way out, going to be replaced by Crossgen. They did a talk on AOT compilation at Java Language Summit last week.
6thaccount2 7y ago
Maybe I've been looking at it wrong. Those books don't exist as you have to go through C# first unless you're just gifted maybe. I've thought OCaml might be a good F# replacement as it has its own compiler and interpreter that doesn't need the CLR/JVM and F# was mostly based off of OCaml, but it's a little awkward to me on Windows and OCaml itself seems to be a little painful (more boilerplate than expected) for doing things like IO (which I do a lot of).