3 ms·

F# doesn't have functors but SML and OCaml do. F# has Computation Expressions which (AFAIK) SML does not have; OCaml has PPX extensions. F# has access to .NET e

F# doesn't have functors but SML and OCaml do. F# has Computation Expressions which (AFAIK) SML does not have; OCaml has PPX extensions. F# has access to .NET ecosstem, JS ecosystem and multi-core. OCaml has easy binding to C but multi-core hasn't quite landed yet. There are a few competing JS compilers for OCaml. F# is the most mainstream of the 3. If you can live without the fancier type-system features (trust me, you probably can!) it's the easiest ride.

momentoftop 5y ago
Many programmers will tell you that you can live with no type system at all, and they would be correct. Personally, as an Ocaml coder, I make extensive use of Ocaml's fancier type-system features and would be sad to lose them.
zerr 5y ago
Anther way to put it - F# has a .NET dependency :)
the_duke 5y ago
F# has quite a bit of awkwardness related to dotnet compatibility. In practice you have to use a lot of C# class based code, which brings an inherent mismatch to the functional model and makes code look more like a multi-paradigm language like Scala. The tooling and ecosystem is great (though not as good as for C#, obviously...), the language has some very nice features and design decisions, but you have to live with a somewhat messy reality. In practice sticking to C# is probably wiser.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  > The tooling and ecosystem is great When I (an utter beginner in it) code in F#, I miss ReSharper a lot. I wish there were an IDE extension with features similar that of ReSharper but for F# rather than C#.
  - myk9001 5y ago
    Give Rider[1] a try? Its F# support is not as fully-featured as C#, but its, in my opinion, the best available F# IDE. Worth noting, many great features of Rider aren't C#-specific, e.g. the incremental search in files works for any language. Keep in mind, it's not free though. 1: https://www.jetbrains.com/rider/ https://www.jetbrains.com/rider/
    - scns 5y ago
      I can recommend getting an all products pack for personal use, if you can afford it.
- de_keyboard 5y ago
  I think a little bit of OOP-related messiness is easily worth it to be part of a mainstream ecosystem.
  - myk9001 5y ago
    An interesting opinion on OOP in F# from Eirik Tsarpalis, who curiously started out their programming with pure FP in Haskell [1]. And a talk from Don Syme, the author of F#, on good F# code as they see it [2]. It's a great talk overall and they specifically address OOP's good and bad bits starting from about 39:00. 1: https://eiriktsarpalis.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/why-oo-matters-in-f/ https://eiriktsarpalis.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/why-oo-matte... 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AZA1zoP-II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AZA1zoP-II
yodsanklai 5y ago
> If you can live without the fancier type-system features One could argue that not only you can, but you should (for the sake of having more readable programs).

momentoftop 5y ago

Many programmers will tell you that you can live with no type system at all, and they would be correct. Personally, as an Ocaml coder, I make extensive use of Ocaml's fancier type-system features and would be sad to lose them.

zerr 5y ago

Anther way to put it - F# has a .NET dependency :)

the_duke 5y ago

F# has quite a bit of awkwardness related to dotnet compatibility. In practice you have to use a lot of C# class based code, which brings an inherent mismatch to the functional model and makes code look more like a multi-paradigm language like Scala. The tooling and ecosystem is great (though not as good as for C#, obviously...), the language has some very nice features and design decisions, but you have to live with a somewhat messy reality. In practice sticking to C# is probably wiser.

qwerty456127 5y ago
> The tooling and ecosystem is great When I (an utter beginner in it) code in F#, I miss ReSharper a lot. I wish there were an IDE extension with features similar that of ReSharper but for F# rather than C#.
- myk9001 5y ago
  Give Rider[1] a try? Its F# support is not as fully-featured as C#, but its, in my opinion, the best available F# IDE. Worth noting, many great features of Rider aren't C#-specific, e.g. the incremental search in files works for any language. Keep in mind, it's not free though. 1: https://www.jetbrains.com/rider/ https://www.jetbrains.com/rider/
  - scns 5y ago
    I can recommend getting an all products pack for personal use, if you can afford it.
de_keyboard 5y ago
I think a little bit of OOP-related messiness is easily worth it to be part of a mainstream ecosystem.
- myk9001 5y ago
  An interesting opinion on OOP in F# from Eirik Tsarpalis, who curiously started out their programming with pure FP in Haskell [1]. And a talk from Don Syme, the author of F#, on good F# code as they see it [2]. It's a great talk overall and they specifically address OOP's good and bad bits starting from about 39:00. 1: https://eiriktsarpalis.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/why-oo-matters-in-f/ https://eiriktsarpalis.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/why-oo-matte... 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AZA1zoP-II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AZA1zoP-II

yodsanklai 5y ago

> If you can live without the fancier type-system features One could argue that not only you can, but you should (for the sake of having more readable programs).