161–170 of 333 posts
It doesn't help that C# has a much, much better name for the purposes of appealing to Pragmatists (in the article's terminology). Every Pragmatist knows that C is a trusted and proven language. So, something that is an improvement or iteration on C is probably fine, too. But what is F? No one knows.
(Author here) Well this is a blast from the past. Back when I wrote this, I kinda hoped F# would surprise me and gain more traction than I expected. But 8 years later, if anything, it seems like the dominance of C# in the .NET ecosystem has grown. F# is still a great language, but the main fact hasn't changed: C# isn't bad enough for F# to thrive.
Basically having the pivot efforts being sabotaged by the same company.
just as true today as 2015 when the article was written, except C# got even better. While I like the F# language, I don't like the (understandably) abandonware of the small community. I've ported most of my F# stuff to C#, and it's not that much different in that you can program in a functional style in C#. Probably the nicest thing in F# that C# doesn't have is computation expressions.
(Author here) Well this is a blast from the past. Back when I wrote this, I kinda hoped F# would surprise me and gain more traction than I expected. But 8 years later, if anything, it seems like the dominance of C# in the .NET ecosystem has grown. F# is still a great language, but the main fact hasn't changed: C# isn't bad enough for F# to thrive.
I don't think it matters how good or bad C# is, Object Oriented Programming is a mess Learning, how to use an Object System (a tree of objects/classes) is inherently hard The current problem with F# is that it doesnt do enough to shield you from objects, it does what it can, but still to use F# effectively, you still need to learn some C# and a lot of API that basically Objects inside Objects inside Objects calling O…
They would make a mess in Modula-2, or Standard ML as well, given how many need a network layer to write modular code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Oh, you _also_ need to print something? Lets stack a few monad transformers..." "But remember that you need the TemplateExplicative and NullUnderstanding compiler extensions!"
You're thinking of Haskell. F# was modelled after OCaml, which doesn't attract monad transformer stacks, and doesn't have a zoo of compiler extensions.
(Author here) Well this is a blast from the past. Back when I wrote this, I kinda hoped F# would surprise me and gain more traction than I expected. But 8 years later, if anything, it seems like the dominance of C# in the .NET ecosystem has grown. F# is still a great language, but the main fact hasn't changed: C# isn't bad enough for F# to thrive.
I don't think it matters how good or bad C# is, Object Oriented Programming is a mess Learning, how to use an Object System (a tree of objects/classes) is inherently hard The current problem with F# is that it doesnt do enough to shield you from objects, it does what it can, but still to use F# effectively, you still need to learn some C# and a lot of API that basically Objects inside Objects inside Objects calling O…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it matters how good or bad C# is, Object Oriented Programming is a mess Learning, how to use an Object System (a tree of objects/classes) is inherently hard The current problem with F# is that it doesnt do enough to shield you from objects, it does what it can, but still to use F# effectively, you still need to learn some C# and a lot of API that basically Objects inside Objects inside Objects calling O…
The worst part of OOP is that all the properties of an object can be a mishmash of values and are mutable. In any method, you never know if the object is in some undesirable state without checking properties within the method itself. Multiply that headache across all methods and all other classes and it becomes a mutable mess. It makes it weird that we pass around objects as types when they encapsulate so much state…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're thinking of Haskell. F# was modelled after OCaml, which doesn't attract monad transformer stacks, and doesn't have a zoo of compiler extensions.
I haven’t used it for some time but OCaml certainly used to have a zoo of incompatible compiler extensions. Circa 2008 or so I once hit on the brilliant idea of using protobufs to get two mutually incompatible halves of an ocaml program to talk to one another only to find that required yet another compiler extension to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it matters how good or bad C# is, Object Oriented Programming is a mess Learning, how to use an Object System (a tree of objects/classes) is inherently hard The current problem with F# is that it doesnt do enough to shield you from objects, it does what it can, but still to use F# effectively, you still need to learn some C# and a lot of API that basically Objects inside Objects inside Objects calling O…
> OOP is bad because eventually OO systems becomes too complex, OO API is intimidation This strikes me as a sort of ... reverse of survivorship bias. You look around and see all complex systems are in OO, then you conclude that it is OO that is the cause of the complexity. Have you considered that the non-OO designs are deficient in some way that prevents them from being used for the type of systems that you find to…