5 ms·

This is so that F# could have higher-order types and interop them with other .NET languages. F#'s type system is simple partly because it strives to use the exi

This is so that F# could have higher-order types and interop them with other .NET languages. F#'s type system is simple partly because it strives to use the existing CLR type system, limitations and all. If you have no such requirements (e.g., Scala, where there's no requirement that Java be able to consume or interpret all of Scala's types), then you can most definitely define a language for the CLR which does this. F* is not a typo -- that is not F#, it is a separate language.

bad_user 12y ago
I am very interested in F*, I heard about it and I'm waiting eagerly for something polished. Personally I don't like F#, the result, because on one hand you've got the Hindley-Milner type system and on the other hand you've got OOP with .NET generics. It resembles Ocaml in philosophy (I'm sure this wasn't by accident), in that it feels and smells like 2 type-systems in the same language. It's just an opinion of taste of course - but would have anybody used F# if it didn't integrate well with .NET's standard assemblies? So F#'s integration with .NET's generics is very understandable and one reason Scala.NET died was because it was too hard to keep the semantics of Scala, while also integrating well with .NET, which meant the project was interesting only for people wanting to port their Scala code to .NET - for which approaches like IKVM.NET were far better options. I think somebody wrote an interesting paper on Scala and .NET's reified generics, sadly I can't find it right now. You may have gotten annoyed about hearing this thing about .NET generics not being expressive enough - I also get annoyed hearing about how Java sucks because it doesn't have reification for generics or other such things, when in truth the compiler can handle specialization just fine and both approaches (runtime versus compile-time) have merit and make different compromises. BTW, I see that you're working on the Roslyn team - you guys are doing great work lately. Keep it up.
- Locke1689 12y ago
  Thanks. :) I happen to agree with you -- I think the technical limitations in both languages/VMs are highly overrated. Java, especially, has been a victim mostly of insufficient leadership and resources, not any fundamental technical issue. C/F# and the CLR, meanwhile, are probably most limited by backward compatibility.

bad_user 12y ago

I am very interested in F*, I heard about it and I'm waiting eagerly for something polished. Personally I don't like F#, the result, because on one hand you've got the Hindley-Milner type system and on the other hand you've got OOP with .NET generics. It resembles Ocaml in philosophy (I'm sure this wasn't by accident), in that it feels and smells like 2 type-systems in the same language. It's just an opinion of taste of course - but would have anybody used F# if it didn't integrate well with .NET's standard assemblies? So F#'s integration with .NET's generics is very understandable and one reason Scala.NET died was because it was too hard to keep the semantics of Scala, while also integrating well with .NET, which meant the project was interesting only for people wanting to port their Scala code to .NET - for which approaches like IKVM.NET were far better options. I think somebody wrote an interesting paper on Scala and .NET's reified generics, sadly I can't find it right now. You may have gotten annoyed about hearing this thing about .NET generics not being expressive enough - I also get annoyed hearing about how Java sucks because it doesn't have reification for generics or other such things, when in truth the compiler can handle specialization just fine and both approaches (runtime versus compile-time) have merit and make different compromises. BTW, I see that you're working on the Roslyn team - you guys are doing great work lately. Keep it up.

Locke1689 12y ago
Thanks. :) I happen to agree with you -- I think the technical limitations in both languages/VMs are highly overrated. Java, especially, has been a victim mostly of insufficient leadership and resources, not any fundamental technical issue. C/F# and the CLR, meanwhile, are probably most limited by backward compatibility.