F#
-
I got my copy of MSDN magazine today. There's an article about F#, and that got me thinking - does anyone here actually use it? I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
-
I got my copy of MSDN magazine today. There's an article about F#, and that got me thinking - does anyone here actually use it? I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
F# has a completely different goal than the C# based languages. There are a few articles about it on CP as you may already know so I gues there are individuals using it. It is a diferent animal and just looking at a few code samples I had a few instant headaches. There was a time when it would have been fun to delve into it like I did 10-15 years ago with Lisp and Prolog but hell time is not enough these days. You probably already found this: http://tomasp.net/blog/fsharp-iv-lang.aspx[^] but for the lazy ones I am posting it again. It is interesting ... what can I say, but it is not going to put bread on my table any time soon. Cheers.
giuchici
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
that's what you say now, but have you heard about F#!?!?!
No, but I've heard the
Stringclass inG#is eye-popping! :)Best wishes, Hans
-
F# is a clone of OCaml, integrated into .NET, if you didn't figure that out. OCaml is very popular for introductory courses at top universities. Maybe Microsoft is partly trying to get back into academia. They have really lost a lot of ground in the ivory tower. Only a small percentage of CS students are running Microsoft Windows these days. Not a good sign for Microsoft.
Wtf?? Obviously I know F# is a "clone" of OCaml. In fact OCaml code will compile in F#. And no, F# has been around for almost as long as C# in fact. F# was the testbed for the new features in C# 2 and C# 3 (generics and Linq). Lastly, Microsoft has always been involved in language academia. Much of the work on Haskell comes from people at MS Research. A good majority of the people working at MSR have always been using other OSes too. Man, the crazy things people say.
-
I got a book on haskell a while back. I've started reading the intro a couple of times but it talks about a whole programming mindset change to move to functional programming, so is F# something you ca pick up over a few days?
Pete
-
F# is a clone of OCaml, integrated into .NET, if you didn't figure that out. OCaml is very popular for introductory courses at top universities. Maybe Microsoft is partly trying to get back into academia. They have really lost a lot of ground in the ivory tower. Only a small percentage of CS students are running Microsoft Windows these days. Not a good sign for Microsoft.
-
I learned to reject it a long time ago when someone on a usenet kept tryin to push F# on everyone but bringing it up at every excuse. Someone shows someone else how to do something in C/C++/C# and this jackass would come up with, "In F# you'd simply have to...." I've always felt that if that was the kind of person who was a propoent of F# then I didn't want to have anything to do with it. Of course I thought rather the same thoughts about C# and .NET up until a couple of years ago.
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
Way to think for yourself.
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
JOAT-MON wrote:
JimmyRopes wrote:
Once you loose your pride, the rest is easy
Is that marriage advice?
Some other great marriage advice I once heard. "You have two choices in a marriage, be right or be happy."
hedgefundit wrote:
"You have two choices in a marriage, be right or be happy."
Some really good advice.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
I got my copy of MSDN magazine today. There's an article about F#, and that got me thinking - does anyone here actually use it? I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
-
I got my copy of MSDN magazine today. There's an article about F#, and that got me thinking - does anyone here actually use it? I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
When I was going through retraining, I looked at the automatically generated F# code when I was working with ASP.NET. Couldn't see the slightest difference from JavaScript. Since I didn't have a book on it, no training oriented with it, and with the complete copy of JS on what I looked at, I lost all interest in it. I've NEVER seen a job posting for a F# developer.
-
I got my copy of MSDN magazine today. There's an article about F#, and that got me thinking - does anyone here actually use it? I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
So far I am successful in avoiding it in wide circle. Perhaps I'm just lazy.
-
What does F# give you that either C# or VB.Net doesn't already give you? Since they're all .Net languages, and they all compile to the same level, there are no optimizations that could possibly make learning F# a "good idea". I know there are some Pascal.Net implementations, as well as Cobol, but other than allowing the programmer to use old code with minor changes, there's no reason to use those languages on new projects. Unless F# closely resembles the language used in critical LOB apps, it's merely a curiosity. EDIT ========= Voting this post a 1 isn't going to change my views.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997modified on Friday, April 8, 2011 4:34 PM
So you program in IML? after all, C# and VB.NET give you nothing you can't get in IML, right? It is all in how you are able to represent the problem and the solution, it is a different type of abstraction than you get with procedural/OO/declarative languages.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Thanks. That's good to know, but it didn't answer my question. I'm curious about how popular the language is and is anyone taking it seriously?
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Since they're all .Net languages, and they all compile to the same level, there are no optimizations that could possibly make learning F# a "good idea".
It is not about optimizations. Some problems can be solved much easier with a language like F# than C#/VB.NET.
Cite a problem that is "easier" to solve with F# than with C#.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
So you program in IML? after all, C# and VB.NET give you nothing you can't get in IML, right? It is all in how you are able to represent the problem and the solution, it is a different type of abstraction than you get with procedural/OO/declarative languages.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No single .net language provides anything more or less than any other language when you get down to the IML. The only reason for picking one over the other (assuming you're starting a brand new app with no mandates for language use) is comfort with said language. Fortran had its benefits, Cobol had its benefits, Pascal, C, C++, etc. With .Net, those benefits are pretty much gone because the compiler optimizes the source the same way. That's what I'm trying to say. Unless F# closely resembles another language that you're already comfortable with (like C# and Java/C++, or VB with vb.net), it's just a curiosity.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Cite a problem that is "easier" to solve with F# than with C#.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Parsers. Edit: Domain-specific languages, iterative evaluation (there aren't many practical REPL evaluators in C#), implementing mathematical equations as code -- generally, any kind of structured data translation.
modified on Friday, April 8, 2011 6:14 PM
-
No single .net language provides anything more or less than any other language when you get down to the IML. The only reason for picking one over the other (assuming you're starting a brand new app with no mandates for language use) is comfort with said language. Fortran had its benefits, Cobol had its benefits, Pascal, C, C++, etc. With .Net, those benefits are pretty much gone because the compiler optimizes the source the same way. That's what I'm trying to say. Unless F# closely resembles another language that you're already comfortable with (like C# and Java/C++, or VB with vb.net), it's just a curiosity.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Try running a well-written F# program through Reflector and disassemble it to C#. It won't even come close to being readable. You really don't know what you're missing out on if you think imperative languages are comparable to functional languages just because they're both turing complete. It's apples and oranges.
-
No single .net language provides anything more or less than any other language when you get down to the IML. The only reason for picking one over the other (assuming you're starting a brand new app with no mandates for language use) is comfort with said language. Fortran had its benefits, Cobol had its benefits, Pascal, C, C++, etc. With .Net, those benefits are pretty much gone because the compiler optimizes the source the same way. That's what I'm trying to say. Unless F# closely resembles another language that you're already comfortable with (like C# and Java/C++, or VB with vb.net), it's just a curiosity.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997The issue is that different languages are better able to express different concepts. Once you have the concept, you can often go back to the old language and express the concepts. The same way you can express OO ideas in c, or Z80 or PIC assembler, though they don't support it native. The real point of a new language is what you are NOT familiar with, since that is the part that expands your concept space. You learn it, not for the new syntax that express old ideas, but for the new idea parts. Then, having learned it, you can figure out how to use the ideas in your native language, and add that power. So obviously, all the power of every language abstraction is available in as low a level microprocessor machine code as you care to hash out the 0s & 1s for. Everything else, from assembler, even ILM, to C# and VB, to whatever the current fad language is, are just curiosities that let us write machine code using different viewpoints.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
What does F# give you that either C# or VB.Net doesn't already give you? Since they're all .Net languages, and they all compile to the same level, there are no optimizations that could possibly make learning F# a "good idea". I know there are some Pascal.Net implementations, as well as Cobol, but other than allowing the programmer to use old code with minor changes, there's no reason to use those languages on new projects. Unless F# closely resembles the language used in critical LOB apps, it's merely a curiosity. EDIT ========= Voting this post a 1 isn't going to change my views.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997modified on Friday, April 8, 2011 4:34 PM
-
I've never used it... there's always a latest and greatest, its a headache to try and keep up with every single language... :wtf:
Keeping up to date is part of your job description as a software developer...