3 ms·
> Microsoft should have just made F# the C# successor. You underestimate the importance of compatibility and familiarity for existing developers. You can show
by usrnm 4y ago
> Microsoft should have just made F# the C# successor.
You underestimate the importance of compatibility and familiarity for existing developers. You can show C# code to any C++, Java or even JS programmer and expect them to grasp the idea of what's going on very quickly. This is a big deal and should not be discarded lightly
- carlmr 4y agoIn terms of looks mostly it just doesn't have as many types and fewer parentheses. Shouldn't be an issue if you know python.
- bbkane 4y agoIn my experience, Algebraic types alone take some work to get used to using competently. That's just one F# uniqueness and there are others. Learning Elm (a similar language) definitely made me a better engineer, but I really don't think learning F# is the same as learning Python for someone with experience with imperative/OO languages. I think the reason it sometimes seems like it is that easy is that, as we gain experience with tools, we tend to forget the difficulties we had learning them.
- carlmr 4y agoI had difficulties learning OOP, I always preferred a more functional style, despite "consensus" needing 20 years to catch on that functional programming alleviates a lot of the issues we have with OOP. Learning F# it instantly clicked. OOP learning issues IMHO are intrinsic to the style, because it's just so seldom helpful in making programming easier. Design patterns are just a symptom of this issue. That OOP is just a misunderstanding another. "Real" OOP as practiced in Erlang/Elixir is quite useful.
- karmakaze 4y agoI think they are making F# the successor but very slowly by evolving C#. I would also have preferred the direct path.