Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

blogs.msdn.com

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#22
post #19

Are we getting any closer of developing .NET / WPF apps on Mac? (Wishful thinking, shameless cry)

I think you're looking for the MonoMac project. It's doubtful that you want to develop actual UI using WPF. Binding to native widget will give your app a much more integrated feel.

http://www.mono-project.com/MonoMac

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#24
post #10

Java is Oracle stack, C# is MS stack, objective-C is Apple stack. Is there an opportunity for an open language with similar VM ease-of-use/performance tradeoffs - or is hardware now fast enough for the ease/speed of dynamic languages to fill that gap (Python, Ruby, Javascript, ...)?

Haskell, Ocaml, and Scala? All are open languages, cross platform, and first two at least are Free. And Scala runs on both the JVM and .NET, covering all three platforms. Is that what you meant?

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#25
It's interesting how the F# team is pushing F# to be the language for data-rich programming. Their Type Provider concept looks promising, but some of their demos still are comically difficult coming from a R/Matlab/Python style of data-rich programming. Of course coming from C#/Java it all looks amazing.

But I don't quite see how F# replaces R or Matlab, even with library support. Performance alone seems dubious value proposition, since packages like Jacket for Matlab make most computations extremely fast.

Anybody have experience where demand for strongly typed language is really needed for data analysis tasks?

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#26
post #25

It's interesting how the F# team is pushing F# to be the language for data-rich programming. Their Type Provider concept looks promising, but some of their demos still are comically difficult coming from a R/Matlab/Python style of data-rich programming. Of course coming from C#/Java it all looks amazing. But I don't quite see how F# replaces R or Matlab, even with library support. Performance alone seems dubious valu…

I think the pitch is that F# is halfway to Matlab without losing general programming power — a best of both worlds kind of thing.

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#27
post #14
post #13

"After some discussion, we’ve decided to do this via a “code drop” model..." They lost me here.

They can't afford to do otherwise. Accepting community contributions will increase the MS surface area for copyright/patent infringements. The F# team is mostly a research outfit - they aren't going to vet patches.

What is the main value then?

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#28
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't afford to do otherwise. Accepting community contributions will increase the MS surface area for copyright/patent infringements. The F# team is mostly a research outfit - they aren't going to vet patches.

What is the main value then?

When Microsoft decides to no long work on F# anymore, somebody else can continue to work on the project.

As it happens right now with IronPython / IronRuby.

I.e. it is just a promise that even if F# isn't receiving the same support as C# is, you have a safety net (kind of).

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#29
post #14
post #13

"After some discussion, we’ve decided to do this via a “code drop” model..." They lost me here.

They can't afford to do otherwise. Accepting community contributions will increase the MS surface area for copyright/patent infringements. The F# team is mostly a research outfit - they aren't going to vet patches.

Sorry, I just don't buy this. From Google, to Yahoo, to other teams in Microsoft, to small startups, to IBM, to single-person freelance developers--each one of these groups have open source projects that accept community contributions.

If that increased the "surface area for copyright/patent infringements" were so great, or were such a dramatic burden, then the above would not be true. But it is true.

Let's look at Cassandra as an absolute prime example of what I'm talking about. The original version of Cassandra was a code drop by Facebook. It made some news in tech blogs, and then mostly everyone forgot about it. A few months later, another version was dropped, but this time nobody really noticed.

Then Jonathan Ellis found the codebase, imported it into GitHub, and started doing development on it in the open, and accepting patches. Sure enough, more people started to take notice and watch as development happened, and started to contribute back. A community started forming. Facebook then donated the project to the Apache Software Foundation, where it's continued to be developed in the open and thrive. Now it's supported by many companies; in fact new companies have sprung up specifically on the premise of providing support for it.

Empirically speaking, the software has had much more development since it switched to being developed in the open. Subjectively speaking, it's simply a vastly improved piece of software from when it was handled as a "code drop", it's boosted Facebook's credibility in the eyes of developers for having started the project, and it's gained much more popularity.

So, going back to F#, what are the goals that Microsoft is trying to further with its platform? I'll posit three (of which there are certainly more): to increase the reach of the .NET platform, to boost Microsoft mindshare, and to increase developer productivity.

Each one of those goals are served better by moving to an open development model, for fairly obvious reasons.

I didn't mean for this response to become so long, but it just seems to me that this is such an obvious and unfortunate blunder that it renders the whole open sourcing of the language nearly worthless.

Re: Microsoft releases F# under Apache 2.0 license

#30
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't afford to do otherwise. Accepting community contributions will increase the MS surface area for copyright/patent infringements. The F# team is mostly a research outfit - they aren't going to vet patches.

What is the main value then?

Value comes from the ability to tweak or change the language if necessary, for your application. A permissive license means you're less locked into the vendor (Microsoft).
Post reply on HN