5 ms·

I get he’s saying it has its place as a learning tool, but this is one reason I haven’t looked to seriously at some languages. For example, F# is a “functional

I get he’s saying it has its place as a learning tool, but this is one reason I haven’t looked to seriously at some languages. For example, F# is a “functional language”, but as best I can tell I can do very similar with C# lambdas. To my (admittedly biased) view, F# is the extremist language and C# the middle-road.

intricatedetail 6y ago
Most of the time choosing a language is like a choosing the color or a trim of the same car. It is so boring.
- ludston 6y ago
  Usually different languages Are tied to different platforms so this isn't really anagolous.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Indeed. You have to pick a 4x4 or motorbike or limousine .. often before you know where you're going.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    I'd think a language tied to a platform only can be considered if you want your product to be tied to such platform.
- rienbdj 6y ago
  You haven’t tried a wide variety of languages then. I have found the language chosen massively shifts what is possible to write and what is convenient to write.
p4bl0 6y ago
Reducing F# or functional programming to lambdas is a bit of a stretch. I don't know F# very well but I understand it is very close to OCaml which I know quite well. F# also has algebraic data types, match, type inference, static type checking, etc. I don't know if C# supports all this, but if it does its probably thanks to the existence of F# on the same .NET platform :).
- 1f60c 6y ago
  > algebraic data types, match, type inference, static type checking Of those, C# only has static type checking. AFAIK C# does have some limited type inference (when using LINQ), but it’s nowhere near as powerful and ubiquitous as F#, where the following is completely valid: let Add a b = a + b and it will be inferred as: let Add (a:int) (b:int) : int = a + b This also works in more complicated cases like when you’re accessing a property on a record, for instance.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    I think the latest C# also has match (a pattern matching overload of the switch keyword).
marcosdumay 6y ago
When you get anything close to abstracting syntax, C# lambdas start to require more boilerplate than the concrete syntax. Any advanced functional structure is completely not available.
rienbdj 6y ago
Indeed, the middle ground depends on your perspective. In my view F# is actually the middle ground between pure functional programming and traditional OOP! F# is much more than just C# with lambdas btw. If you want to write .net code in a functional style then F# is easily worth the time investment to learn.
lou1306 6y ago
Just a counterexample: partial function application. let add x y = x + y let f = add 2 Boom, now `f 4` evaluates to 6. I reckon that doing the same with C# would require a lot of boilerplate. (And I know I could have said `let f = (+) 2`, I just wanted to spell it out for those unfamiliar with F#)
ByteJockey 6y ago
Wait, I'm missing something here, because it seems that C# would be the extremist language. It even fits the pithy little saying in the article: Classes are awesome. What if we made a PL where everything was a class? I mean, you can use lambdas, but last time I used C# you could still only use them inside a class definition.* *Note: I haven't used C# in a while, do you guys have free functions yet? If so, ignore this post, my knowledge is just outdated.

intricatedetail 6y ago

Most of the time choosing a language is like a choosing the color or a trim of the same car. It is so boring.

ludston 6y ago
Usually different languages Are tied to different platforms so this isn't really anagolous.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Indeed. You have to pick a 4x4 or motorbike or limousine .. often before you know where you're going.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  I'd think a language tied to a platform only can be considered if you want your product to be tied to such platform.
rienbdj 6y ago
You haven’t tried a wide variety of languages then. I have found the language chosen massively shifts what is possible to write and what is convenient to write.

p4bl0 6y ago

Reducing F# or functional programming to lambdas is a bit of a stretch. I don't know F# very well but I understand it is very close to OCaml which I know quite well. F# also has algebraic data types, match, type inference, static type checking, etc. I don't know if C# supports all this, but if it does its probably thanks to the existence of F# on the same .NET platform :).

1f60c 6y ago
> algebraic data types, match, type inference, static type checking Of those, C# only has static type checking. AFAIK C# does have some limited type inference (when using LINQ), but it’s nowhere near as powerful and ubiquitous as F#, where the following is completely valid: let Add a b = a + b and it will be inferred as: let Add (a:int) (b:int) : int = a + b This also works in more complicated cases like when you’re accessing a property on a record, for instance.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I think the latest C# also has match (a pattern matching overload of the switch keyword).

marcosdumay 6y ago

When you get anything close to abstracting syntax, C# lambdas start to require more boilerplate than the concrete syntax. Any advanced functional structure is completely not available.

rienbdj 6y ago

Indeed, the middle ground depends on your perspective. In my view F# is actually the middle ground between pure functional programming and traditional OOP! F# is much more than just C# with lambdas btw. If you want to write .net code in a functional style then F# is easily worth the time investment to learn.

lou1306 6y ago

Just a counterexample: partial function application. let add x y = x + y let f = add 2 Boom, now `f 4` evaluates to 6. I reckon that doing the same with C# would require a lot of boilerplate. (And I know I could have said `let f = (+) 2`, I just wanted to spell it out for those unfamiliar with F#)

ByteJockey 6y ago

Wait, I'm missing something here, because it seems that C# would be the extremist language. It even fits the pithy little saying in the article: Classes are awesome. What if we made a PL where everything was a class? I mean, you can use lambdas, but last time I used C# you could still only use them inside a class definition.* *Note: I haven't used C# in a while, do you guys have free functions yet? If so, ignore this post, my knowledge is just outdated.