X# Functional Programming from Microsoft?

TheSync writes "SearchWebServices.Com has an article claiming that Microsoft is working on a functional language named 'X#'. The language is supposed to be data-oriented and LISP-like, but set up to handle XML."

Comments

Is .NET .DEAD yet?

[MacAndrew]

I've been waiting for the .ANNOUNCEMENT, but .MAYBE I'm .HOPING for too .MUCH.

You know.. in music..

[MarvinMouse]

Being sharp isn't a good thing... It's actually common for singers who don't know how to sing to sing sharp... Yet, Microsoft likes C#, and X# (X isn't even a note this time.) I am excited though. I am waiting for someone to tune Microsoft a bit and perhaps release b-flat, or perhaps D##.

Sometimes being sharp is useful (in the right key), but if you already know the key is C, C# is not a good note to hit.

Wrong

[sporty]

"You can't just import an XML file and magically have it available to your program. You have to first put it through some sort of transformation, which requires work that is unnatural or unwieldy." -- Sean McGrath

yes you can

Re:I see the plan. . .

[Ouroboro]

1. Expand .NET framework to cater to the 50 or so programmers out there who like both M$ and functional programming.
2. ???????
3. PROFIT!

You want to know the funny thing... I interviewed at MS (Yes I know I'm a whore). I didn't get the job. I think the primary reason was that durring the whole interview I was bagging on CS curriculums that made use of functional programming languages. It just so happens that at least two of the interviewers were big fans of functional programming. One of them had even studied under one of the people who was responsible for big chunks of the Scheme language specification. I guess there are two take aways from this. One, know more about the backgrounds of those who interview you. Two, don't underestimate the number of programmers who like both ms and functional programming. I manage to find two of them in the same room.

Re:Can we just put and end to this already m$

[JohnFluxx]

They had to do it. .NET was NOT designed for functional languages. They tried to add on supported with something called idx

However when they came to try to port something like haskal over to it, they found it just wouldn't fit(See page 18) so they had to make do with a sort of bridge instead.

So what I think they've done is taken a functional language, taken out the features that don't fit well with .net (untyped terms?) and called it a "feature" :)

I'm way out of my depth on this though - hopefully by providing links someone cleverer than me will correct me.

Re:Why Not XSLT?

[__past__]

XSLT may be turing complete, but at a general-purpose programming language, it sucks. Even for complex XML transformations, it gets messy. Would you like to write

<call-template name="split-string">
<with-param name="string" select="$s">
<with-param name="delimiter" select=" "/>
</call-template>

instead of

split_string($s, " ")

every time? That all input has to be well-formed XML doesn't help either. XSLT is useful, but for a limited domain.

good rhetoric but low on fact

[DrSkwid]

The next thing you know they are going to be taking something like unix and adding a letter to it and calling it the greatest thing sence sliced bread

August 1980: Microsoft announces XENIX OS, a portable operating system for various 16-bit microprocessors. XENIX is an interactive, multi-user, multi-tasking system. It will be able to run all of Microsoft's existing system software, and also be compatible with the programs written for UNIX OS.

[Xenix was actually an OEM version of Unix licensed by ATT]

August 1984: Microsoft announces that it will use XENIX and MS-DOS for its new personal computer, the IBM PC AT. The new PC sets the standards in multi-user systems. Both of its operating systems support the Intel APX-286 microprocessor.

see here and here

As for Linux :
July 1991
> Message-ID:
> Date: 3 Jul 91 10:00:50 GMT
>
> Hello netlanders,
>
> Due to a project I'm working on (in minix), I'm interested in the posix
> standard definition. Could somebody please point me to a (preferably)
> machine-readable format of the latest posix rules? Ftp-sites would be
> nice.