3 ms·

I'm happy C# is adopting more from F#, but only half joking, where are all the comments complaining that new syntax and more operators make code harder to read?

I'm happy C# is adopting more from F#, but only half joking, where are all the comments complaining that new syntax and more operators make code harder to read? Every time there is an article about F#, half the comments are people saying how it has too many operators. Add a few more to C# and every comment is praise.

mitchty 12y ago
If it helps, I'll take one for the team. GRR TOO MANY OPERATORS! Also syntax, and stuff. But I don't use c# so I've no real skin in the game. Just trying to help get things out of everyone's system.
mitchty 12y ago
If it helps, I'll take one for the team. GRR TOO MANY OPERATORS! Also syntax, and stuff. But I don't use c# so I've no real skin in the game. Just trying to help get things out of everyone's system.
mitchty 12y ago
If it helps, I'll take one for the team. GRR TOO MANY OPERATORS! Also syntax, and stuff. But I don't use c# so I've no real skin in the game. Just trying to help get things out of everyone's system.
CmonDev 12y ago
F# tries to make things too concise. I think it would be more approachable having curly brackets and maybe less inference (or bring great tooling and actual killer features). Love the immutability and non-null default! Ideal language for me is somewhere between C# and F#. C# is moving there (but F# doesn't).
- JackMorgan 12y ago
  If you want "actual killer features", they'd by definition be unreadable, since you've never seen them before. I used to think F# was unreadable, then I realized it was those killer features that have no "curly equivalent" that was tripping me up. Once I learned them, it became easier to read. Before I knew what lambdas were JS was hard to read too, and before I learned inheritance both Java and C# were confusing messes. And what would F# need to move to? You can type out the types now, you can do all the OO of C#. The only thing I can think you mean is as add curly braces around functions and classes, which wouldn't make it objectively easier to read, just more familiar to some C# developers. Unless you mean add higher kinded types, but that would move it closer to Haskell.

mitchty 12y ago

If it helps, I'll take one for the team. GRR TOO MANY OPERATORS! Also syntax, and stuff. But I don't use c# so I've no real skin in the game. Just trying to help get things out of everyone's system.

mitchty 12y ago

If it helps, I'll take one for the team. GRR TOO MANY OPERATORS! Also syntax, and stuff. But I don't use c# so I've no real skin in the game. Just trying to help get things out of everyone's system.

mitchty 12y ago

If it helps, I'll take one for the team. GRR TOO MANY OPERATORS! Also syntax, and stuff. But I don't use c# so I've no real skin in the game. Just trying to help get things out of everyone's system.

CmonDev 12y ago

F# tries to make things too concise. I think it would be more approachable having curly brackets and maybe less inference (or bring great tooling and actual killer features). Love the immutability and non-null default! Ideal language for me is somewhere between C# and F#. C# is moving there (but F# doesn't).

JackMorgan 12y ago
If you want "actual killer features", they'd by definition be unreadable, since you've never seen them before. I used to think F# was unreadable, then I realized it was those killer features that have no "curly equivalent" that was tripping me up. Once I learned them, it became easier to read. Before I knew what lambdas were JS was hard to read too, and before I learned inheritance both Java and C# were confusing messes. And what would F# need to move to? You can type out the types now, you can do all the OO of C#. The only thing I can think you mean is as add curly braces around functions and classes, which wouldn't make it objectively easier to read, just more familiar to some C# developers. Unless you mean add higher kinded types, but that would move it closer to Haskell.