8 ms·
It's strange how appealing F# becomes once you realize you have the full power of the Visual Studio debugger and the .NET libraries. To someone who has mostly w
by Ironballs 12y ago
It's strange how appealing F# becomes once you realize you have the full power of the Visual Studio debugger and the .NET libraries. To someone who has mostly worked with Haskell (w.r.t. functional languages), that sounds great. Good debugging is absolutely essential - though with strongly typed functional languages, it's not often that necessary. But it's nice.
Then again, it's a very liberal language, if the end of the spectrum is Haskell. It allows side effects and mutable variables. While very convenient, nothing forces you to use these though. There are immutable data structures for everything. But it seems there are all the functional tools you'd want.
It's not Haskell, it's not pure and beautiful like it, but you still have computational expressions, which allow you to implement monads; metaprogramming, operator overloading, units of measure, and active patterns.
My only gripe is that the compiler doesn't translate functions that can return null to return an option value (i.e. Maybes), and null values in general! Would make interfacing the .NET library much cleaner. Right now I have to do something silly like this:
let notNull a = if a <> null then Some a else None
So I have to pipe every function call that may return null to this function when I'm in the Maybe monad, which is frankly a bit bothersome.
Still. Even being able to use the Maybe monad when working with .NET is really cool.
- pjmlp 12y ago> Then again, it's a very liberal language, if the end of the spectrum is Haskell. It allows side effects and mutable variables. Like the majority of ML languages. Haskell is pretty special here, being the descendant of Miranda. Personally I think ML languages of OCaml branch are better for the general programmer public, as the entry level is a lower.
- amirmc 12y agoFor those who may be interested in contributing to the OCaml language, the Compiler Hacking Wiki is a good place to start. https://github.com/ocamllabs/compiler-hacking/wiki https://github.com/ocamllabs/compiler-hacking/wiki
- fsloth 12y agoIf I recall correctly I think at some point Ocaml required a paid developer licence to be obtained from Inria. Has this changed or am I just misinformed?
- amirmc 12y agoNot that I'm aware of. AFAIK anyone can submit a patch to OCaml without any hurdles. There is a Consortium that companies can join and they benefit from a different licence. That might be what you're thinking of. http://ocaml.org/community/support.html#TheCamlConsortiumatInria http://ocaml.org/community/support.html#TheCamlConsortiumatI...
- fsloth 12y agoThanks for the clarification!
- moron4hire 12y agoHow do you feel about having a different set of operators for integers and reals? Like "+." versus "+".
- FraaJad 12y agohow to you feel about the overloaded use of `=` in C?
- moron4hire 12y agoI'm not sure I understand what you mean. `=` is only assignment in C (or Java, or C#, or most any language I know of). `==` is comparison, being a different operator, one wouldn't say `=` is "overloaded". Two different operations, two different operators. Yes, C famously makes it easy to miss the extra `=` in if expressions, but that's C specifically, and it's not the fault of the operator, that's actually the fault of automatic conversions from int to bool. Static languages designed after I was born usually require boolean expressions in their `if` statements explicitly. But `+` and `+.` are the same operation. Or are you saying that adding integers and adding reals are not the same operation, and thus warrant separate operators?
- gnuvince 12y agoI've begun to like having '+' and '+.' operators in OCaml. Not that I'm never tripped up, I often am, but I can never hide implicit conversions. Another thing to consider is how you would implement having '+' for both integers and floats. In a language like C, '+' is designed for its numerical types, but what if you want to use it for big ints? Or for vectors? In a language like C++ you can overload operators, in Haskell or Rust operators are part of a typeclass or trait respectively; you need to add extra features to the language and the code generated by '+' is no longer a simple iadd or dadd instruction. OCaml's choice may not be the best one or the most popular one, but I think it works fine.
- tome 12y agoPerhaps you know this, but just for the sake of precision and avoidance of doubt: Haskell numerical operations don't actually do any sort of conversion.