121–130 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can add F# projects to existing solutions and use F# in some places, C# in others, and C++ in still others, heck even VB.NET can come by for a drink if I'm feeling shameless and not needing to keep up appearances. OCaml cannot do that. I say this as someone who currently is finishing a year of F# study with plans to study Rust in 2020 and OCaml in 2021.
They could have ported ocaml to the clr instead of doing their own ms thing. They could have promoted ocaml instead of splitting the community interested in a practical ml derived language - with the consequence that today neither has a relevant user base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name me any other big company with great ethics and all nice and fluffy. For example look at how Google had started and what it has become. Not really trying to protect Microsoft here but them companies are all the same, just different degree of "success".
I think that is exactly the point. The argument is that if a language is developed/mainly contributed by a single company there is an inherent risk of that language being suddenly discountinued or lacking features that are needed by other people/companies. At least that's how I understand the critics against microsoft in this case.
Funny how nobody seems to give pile on Google for how it handles Go here...
I really like the idea of implementing mutability control at the level of a collective as opposed to a single object. A great many transactions are multi-object. Love the idea that a Netscape-legacy language has traction there. I hope they don’t return to their pre-Nadella practices.
Actually in Rust you have a problem where you can't express partial access to a struct at a function level. This means that you can't put some code into a separate function right now, making use of closures/iterators harder. There are attempts to fix this ([1] [2]). If borrow checking is done on collections of objects instead, the problem can be tackled more easily I think. [1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issu…
I'm surprised Microsoft didn't "invent" their own version of Go yet. Actually I'd use it in a heartbeat over Google's if they add generics to it. Just call it "Micro".
I'm surprised Microsoft didn't "invent" their own version of Go yet. Actually I'd use it in a heartbeat over Google's if they add generics to it. Just call it "Micro".
This so much! Go would be a great language if it had generics and no "interface {}". I'd use that over any flavor of Rust any day.
I'm surprised Microsoft didn't "invent" their own version of Go yet. Actually I'd use it in a heartbeat over Google's if they add generics to it. Just call it "Micro".
This so much! Go would be a great language if it had generics and no "interface {}". I'd use that over any flavor of Rust any day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having rust as the only low level language with ownership concept isn't ideal either.
Not ideal isn't necessarily worse. It is objectively worse for there to be two such languages, one of which is poorly funded and the other funded by Microsoft than have one such language that is cross platform. Also the Java oxygen is sucked out of the room by C#. All the OCaml oxygen is sucked out of the room by F#. A world where all the rust oxygen is sucked out of the room by R# and tied to the windows ecosystem i…