F# - A New .Net language

Goalie_Ca writes "Neonerds.net has learned of an implementation of the ML programming language for the .NET Framework. F# is essentially an implementation of the core of the OCaml programming language . F#/OCaml/ML is a mixed functional-imperative programming language which is excellent for medium-advanced programmers and for teaching. In addition, you can access hundreds of .NET libraries using F#, and the F# code you write can be accessed from C# and other .NET languages. See the F# Homepage."

Comments

Why don't they use Smalltalk and stop F#$% around?

[crovira]

All this shit and more has been available for years in Smalltalk.

Re:That's the power of .NET

[Beliskner]

So this compiler lets you access Microsoft's proprietary .Net class libraries. A native code O'Caml compiler can access the hundreds of libraries written in C, on a range of platforms. What's the big deal?

You are correct. Micro$oft is constructing a Developers' Superstore - a familiar place where any developer of any language will go to code. Micro$oft is trying to achieve branding.

This is a tried and tested method, 50 years ago you went to the clothes store and bought some clothes, electrical store and bought some electricals, mechanical store and bought a washing machine, tool store and bought some tools.

Micro$oft is trying to construt a "Wal-Mart" that everybody goes to instead of all these disparate places. Not bad, appeals to beginners.

Right now a new developer says "I want to learn how to code" and you say, "Which platform? What type of program - textprocessing=Perl, compiler=Haskell, generalhighexecspeed=C++, generalhighdevelopmentspeed=Java, webdevelopment=PHP,J2EE,..." Micro$oft is trying to make it so that instead of all these disparate RPMs that confuse the heck out of newbie developers, you just use one IDE - Micro$oft's IDE, same as Wal-mart. The only difference (apart from the obvious) to a newbie will be that C++ has a compile button and Perl doesn't, his questions will become gradually more complicated after that. The weakness is that a bug in the CLR will affect all languages that use that functionality, you lose bug compartmentalisation and damage limitation.

To destroy languages is the power of .NET

[Baki]

Just compare any .NET language with the original, (C++ versus the real thing, F# versus ML etc). What you see is that any language, in order to achive interoperability at this level (including inheritance etc) and thus get access to .NET libraries, needs to be mutated into something different.

Only superficially all .NET languages are different, only superficially they are like their originals (syntax etc). In fact all .NET languages are structurally alike, only the syntax is somewhat different.

Therefore, should .NET succeed in the marketplace, it would be an enormous loss. The choice (of languages) is just fake. In fact it is total assimilation and destruction of variety.

I have nothing against the virtual machine idea (C# + CLR) which is 100% like Java + the JVM. That is a good principle which has its uses (just asking why not go with Java, C# merely adds some syntactic sugar but brings no true improvements such as templates or multiple inheritance). But this plan/strategy of so mutating all existing languages in all alike .NET variants is horrible.

Re:Pay more for a brand name of asprin

[3seas]

I should add that I'm so tired of Microsofts abstraction manipulations, or lies and manipulations of the meaning of words, etc...

It's like the boy who cried wolf. At some point it just becomes more productive to simple ignore them and their distortion. While focusing on that which is without alot of crying wolf.

Remember that developer use of .net is constrained to non-GLP work.