3 ms·

Well F# is based on OCaml, and it have been recognized for some time that C# is adopting more and more features from F#. As the article alludes to, this is not

by goto11 7y ago

Well F# is based on OCaml, and it have been recognized for some time that C# is adopting more and more features from F#. As the article alludes to, this is not without controversy. Some feel that C# is becoming too bloated, and if you want to program in a functional style, you could just use F# in the first place. C# is much more widespread though, so this makes functional idioms more broadly available. On the other hand, C# have also gotten deeper support for pass-by-reference and stack allocation which I consider more low level features. So I don't think the development is purely in functional direction.

fiveminds 7y ago
me to you can solve the same problem in 100 ways and each way can have its own tips and ticks and pors and cons! C# will be complex like c++ not for new developers only for experts!
- runevault 7y ago
  While I don't entirely disagree with you, "default" c# style won't screw you up the way default c++ will, while masterful c# will give you a non-trivial amount of the benefits if they continue to make intelligent improvements. Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. But I feel like the direction they are taking is a reasonable one.
- goto11 7y ago
  This is the basic dilemma for any language. You can evolve and grow bigger, or you can stay simple and pure. I think history show languages have to evolve to stay relevant - "small and elegant" languages like Scheme and Smalltalk are not widely used. But since you can't really remove existing features, evolving leads to more complex languages.
thrower123 7y ago
Every C# release, F# starts looking less and less compelling. There's already a level of friction, since so much of the underlying framework is C#-centric and littered with exceptions and nulls, and if you want to expose F# code to be consumed by C#, you have to dumb things down. And the tooling for F# is considerably less advanced than you get with ReSharper or even out-of-the-box in Visual Studio. It's a bit of a shame; I suppose that is one of the reasons that some people in the F# community are really pivoting over to WASM and Fable for using F# in the browser.
- Dolores12 7y ago
  I think you need less refactoring in F# in first place. Recently, i've tried fsbolero and was really impressed. No way I return back to C#.
SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
C# can only go so far down the road towards F# without introducing currying and partial application. I can't see those ever being introduced into C#.
- LandR 7y ago
  You can sorta get partial application using lambdas, or whatever they called in C# Like a poor mans hacky partial application, one argument at a time. namespace Bored { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using static System.Console; internal static class Program { private static void Main() { var addFive = Add.Partial(5); addFive(6).Print(); // Prints 11 Enumerable.Range(0, 5).Select(addFive).ForEach(WriteLine); // Prints 5 to 9 } private static Func<int, int, int> Add = (int x, int y) => x + y; } internal static class Extensions { public static Func<T2, TR> Partial<T1, T2, TR>(this Func<T1, T2, TR> func, T1 t1) => t2 => func(t1, t2); public static void Print<T>(this T t) => WriteLine(t); public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> xs, Action<T> f) => xs.ToList().ForEach(f); } } Define your partial extension method for each arrity to Func. I think it maxes at 16?

by goto11 7y ago

fiveminds 7y ago

me to you can solve the same problem in 100 ways and each way can have its own tips and ticks and pors and cons! C# will be complex like c++ not for new developers only for experts!

runevault 7y ago
While I don't entirely disagree with you, "default" c# style won't screw you up the way default c++ will, while masterful c# will give you a non-trivial amount of the benefits if they continue to make intelligent improvements. Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. But I feel like the direction they are taking is a reasonable one.
goto11 7y ago
This is the basic dilemma for any language. You can evolve and grow bigger, or you can stay simple and pure. I think history show languages have to evolve to stay relevant - "small and elegant" languages like Scheme and Smalltalk are not widely used. But since you can't really remove existing features, evolving leads to more complex languages.

thrower123 7y ago

Every C# release, F# starts looking less and less compelling. There's already a level of friction, since so much of the underlying framework is C#-centric and littered with exceptions and nulls, and if you want to expose F# code to be consumed by C#, you have to dumb things down. And the tooling for F# is considerably less advanced than you get with ReSharper or even out-of-the-box in Visual Studio. It's a bit of a shame; I suppose that is one of the reasons that some people in the F# community are really pivoting over to WASM and Fable for using F# in the browser.

Dolores12 7y ago
I think you need less refactoring in F# in first place. Recently, i've tried fsbolero and was really impressed. No way I return back to C#.

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago

C# can only go so far down the road towards F# without introducing currying and partial application. I can't see those ever being introduced into C#.

LandR 7y ago
You can sorta get partial application using lambdas, or whatever they called in C# Like a poor mans hacky partial application, one argument at a time. namespace Bored { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using static System.Console; internal static class Program { private static void Main() { var addFive = Add.Partial(5); addFive(6).Print(); // Prints 11 Enumerable.Range(0, 5).Select(addFive).ForEach(WriteLine); // Prints 5 to 9 } private static Func<int, int, int> Add = (int x, int y) => x + y; } internal static class Extensions { public static Func<T2, TR> Partial<T1, T2, TR>(this Func<T1, T2, TR> func, T1 t1) => t2 => func(t1, t2); public static void Print<T>(this T t) => WriteLine(t); public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> xs, Action<T> f) => xs.ToList().ForEach(f); } } Define your partial extension method for each arrity to Func. I think it maxes at 16?