Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Open Sources F#

Posted by Soulskill on from the does-f#-scale dept.

aabelro writes "Don Syme has announced the release of the F# compiler source code as a code drop under Apache 2.0. He wrote, 'The F# PowerPack now includes libraries, tools and the compiler/library source code drops. I'd like to take a moment to explain the F# team's approach to this. Firstly, the source for the F# compiler in our MSI/CTP releases has been available for some time, in the releases themselves, so in that sense there's not much new in this release. Secondly, we've always made sure we have a free download binary release of F# available, and will continue to do that, and that should still be the main way you "get" a release of F#. However, we've long discussed making compiler+library source available in a different way. After some discussion, we've decided to do this via a "code drop" model, where we make available versions of the compiler+library code logically matching each release of the F# language itself.'"

24 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. So .... by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where's the catch? What will you inadvertently start using that will later need licensing?

  2. Nice, but... by cerberusss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's really nice they did this, and the license they chose (Apache 2.0) is very free/libre.

    But honestly... is there going to be a big community around this? I don't think so. You can say a lot about the Windows ecosystem, but "lively open source developer community" isn't one of them. So the source code is probably going to be of use for debugging purposes, or research purposes, but other than that, I can't see lots of people chipping in on the F# libs or something like that.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Nice, but... by jgagnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe port it to JVM or LLVM?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    2. Re:Nice, but... by NevarMore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So all those Windows projects on Sourceforge aren't part of a lively community? All of the open source web projects that make sure they work on Windows browsers aren't lively?

    3. Re:Nice, but... by Cassini2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed. This is a prelude to cancellation.

      They are planning to starve the development team of resources, prior to cancelling the project. As they are reducing development resources anyway, this open source experiment does not cost anything. If some huge success comes of the effort, then the PHB in charge claims it was his brilliant idea.

    4. Re:Nice, but... by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are actually several .NET tools that are open source like NHibernate and NUnit.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    5. Re:Nice, but... by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which are just clones of the original java tools, like C# is a clone of Java

      And GNU/Linux is a clone of UNIX, and Quadrapassel from GNOME Games is a clone of Tetris...

    6. Re:Nice, but... by swilver · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Many companies build their crap in their in-house-developed-tool-of-choice. It says nothing about whether they also want to support it publicly.

  3. /. snottery by dgower2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unbelievable! They start moving in a direction that they've been criticized for NOT moving in/adopting and what's the response from the /. snots? I guess it takes some honor/courage/maturity to give credit when it's due.

    --

    Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    1. Re:/. snottery by _0rm_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's commendable that they would move in this direction, but history has shown us that Microsoft has a tendency to take a step forward, then another two steps back as far as the Open Source community is concerned. Does seeking royalties for companies to use Linux in their devices ring any bells?

      --
      Boredom is bliss.
  4. Re:Why when we already have Ocaml? by Instant_Karmma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because many of us - like it or not - develop on Windows platforms. F# works better with .NET than Ocaml does.

  5. Patents by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Until Microsoft permanently ceases asserting software patent rights, sharing their source code is of very limited value.

    1. Re:Patents by mattdm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until Microsoft permanently ceases asserting software patent rights, sharing their source code is of very limited value.

      And therefore, it's interesting that the chose to use a license that explicitly offers a Grant of Patent License.

    2. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's because red herrings and Oracle-style dickery run rampant in companies that open their source. VMWare, for example, is doing the bare minimum for GPL compliance.

  6. Re:What is F#? by _0rm_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    --- I'd do a lot more coding in Linux if I had something that was similar to (and of the same quality, which throws out things like Monodevelop) Visual Studio. Vim ;)

    --
    Boredom is bliss.
  7. No catch. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where's the catch? What will you inadvertently start using that will later need licensing?

    There is no catch. Microsoft is doing this because F# has no commercial value. Who uses F#? A couple of math/CS geeks?

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:No catch. by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ocaml, F#'s cousin, is used by a large private investment house -- Jane Street. F# itself is used in MS's static code analysis tools, like the driver verifier, and surely in a lot of in-house tools.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:No catch. by Giometrix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From my understanding there is a lot of interest in F# in financial areas.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    3. Re:No catch. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no catch. Microsoft is doing this because F# has no commercial value.

      Yup, that's precisely why F# - previously a research project in Microsoft Research - was taken up for inclusion in Visual Studio 2010, IDE support added, new documentation written and put into MSDN Library etc. Because it has absolutely no commercial value.

  8. dead as a door knob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Whenever MSFT opensource something, it means they're not going to spend any time, money, or FTEs on it.

  9. Does this mean that.. by crf00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean that we can use the source code to port F# to other platform such as GCC and LLVM?

  10. Re:What is F#? by slyrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Forgive my lack of knowledge as Delphi developer, but what is F# and does it have any advantages over, say, C#?

    Well really the power of F# comes from the functional programming style. So there are much easier, cleaner ways to do some things in F# than C#. They both have the same capabilities, the way you implement and code them is just different. Also, with the ability to have F# and C# code call each other makes it so you can have the benefits of object oriented (C#) along with the benefits of functional (F#) while having clean code in both.

  11. Re:Great news for someone in scientific computing by zerojoker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that this is a really nice from Microsoft, but why not go for the "original", i.e. Ocaml?

  12. Re:there's always a catch by formfeed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    F# will be free, but you will have to pay for the full Microsoft F#$@ experience.