4 ms·

You're thinking of Haskell. F# was modelled after OCaml, which doesn't attract monad transformer stacks, and doesn't have a zoo of compiler extensions.

seanhunter 3y ago
I haven’t used it for some time but OCaml certainly used to have a zoo of incompatible compiler extensions. Circa 2008 or so I once hit on the brilliant idea of using protobufs to get two mutually incompatible halves of an ocaml program to talk to one another only to find that required yet another compiler extension to work.
- momentoftop 3y ago
  Are you thinking of preprocessors? Back then, it would have been via Camlp4 and Camlp5.
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Aah yes I am
ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
Well, they aren't actually compiler extensions but pre processor extensions (PPX). And I would really like if OCaml would have had the possibility to add the needed PPXs names to the source file (like Haskell's compiler extensions). So as to not have to read the Dune (or whatever build system is used) file to get to know where `foo%bar` or `[@@foo]` is coming from and what is doing. But at least the usage of `ppxlib` nowadays should make PPXs "compose" aka. not stamping on each other's feet. https://ocaml.org/docs/metaprogramming https://ocaml.org/docs/metaprogramming http://ocamlverse.net/content/metaprogramming.html http://ocamlverse.net/content/metaprogramming.html
jackmott42 3y ago
You have to add extra syntax to do very normal things like have more than one expression in a function.
- colanderman 3y ago
  As someone who's coded OCaml for 20 years, I have no idea what you're referring to. `let x in y`? `x; y`? `x, y`? Those are all in the base language.
tombert 3y ago
I'm pretty sure F# was modeled on both. There are some definite "Haskell-isms" in F#; if nothing else, monads are typically done in something more or less equivalent to the `do` notation (an `async` or `seq` block), for example. The syntax superficially looks a lot like OCaml, but it doesn't do the cool stuff with OCaml functors and modules; you write it a lot more like Haskell most of the time.
- ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
  Here is the "official" history of F#: https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-draft-1.pdf https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-draft-1.pdf Don Syme began with a port of Haskell to .Net, but SPJ convinced him that this is a bad idea, so he did choose OCaml. ("The Decision to Create F#", Page 9)

seanhunter 3y ago

I haven’t used it for some time but OCaml certainly used to have a zoo of incompatible compiler extensions. Circa 2008 or so I once hit on the brilliant idea of using protobufs to get two mutually incompatible halves of an ocaml program to talk to one another only to find that required yet another compiler extension to work.

momentoftop 3y ago
Are you thinking of preprocessors? Back then, it would have been via Camlp4 and Camlp5.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Aah yes I am

ReleaseCandidat 3y ago

Well, they aren't actually compiler extensions but pre processor extensions (PPX). And I would really like if OCaml would have had the possibility to add the needed PPXs names to the source file (like Haskell's compiler extensions). So as to not have to read the Dune (or whatever build system is used) file to get to know where `foo%bar` or `[@@foo]` is coming from and what is doing. But at least the usage of `ppxlib` nowadays should make PPXs "compose" aka. not stamping on each other's feet. https://ocaml.org/docs/metaprogramming https://ocaml.org/docs/metaprogramming http://ocamlverse.net/content/metaprogramming.html http://ocamlverse.net/content/metaprogramming.html

jackmott42 3y ago

You have to add extra syntax to do very normal things like have more than one expression in a function.

colanderman 3y ago
As someone who's coded OCaml for 20 years, I have no idea what you're referring to. `let x in y`? `x; y`? `x, y`? Those are all in the base language.

tombert 3y ago

I'm pretty sure F# was modeled on both. There are some definite "Haskell-isms" in F#; if nothing else, monads are typically done in something more or less equivalent to the `do` notation (an `async` or `seq` block), for example. The syntax superficially looks a lot like OCaml, but it doesn't do the cool stuff with OCaml functors and modules; you write it a lot more like Haskell most of the time.

ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
Here is the "official" history of F#: https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-draft-1.pdf https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-draft-1.pdf Don Syme began with a port of Haskell to .Net, but SPJ convinced him that this is a bad idea, so he did choose OCaml. ("The Decision to Create F#", Page 9)