Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tegeek 3875 days ago
If you've a look at F#, you get all of the things you said plus OCamel syntax (without functors etc.).
2 comments
mackwic 3875 days ago
F# is an excellent technology, and inspired some of the recent Ocaml developments (we still look at ActivePattern with envy).

I saw some pieces of F# in the FinTech here and there, I think Microsoft could do a better job at marketing it because it really has great potential in the .Net ecosystem.

link
kyllo 3875 days ago
What do you mean by "without functors?" F# doesn't have a way to define a `map` function that is generalizable to arbitrary data types?
link
pdpi 3875 days ago
OCaml functors are not the same thing as Haskell functors — in OCaml they refer to mappings from modules to modules.

https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/functors.html

link
ufo 3875 days ago
"Functor" might just be the most overloaded term in computer programming... Just of the top of my head it has totally different meanings in Ocaml, Haskell and C++.
link
kyllo 3875 days ago
They're not totally different between OCaml and Haskell. They're based on the same concept from Category Theory: a mapping of objects and morphisms from one category to another. It's just that Haskell functors are at the type level and OCaml's functors are at the module level.

Apparently F# has support for neither style of functor--it doesn't have parametric modules and it also doesn't have typeclasses. So in F# `map` is defined independently for each type:

   Set.map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a Set -> 'b Set 
   Seq.map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a seq -> 'b seq 
   List.map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a list -> 'b list 
   Array.map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a [] -> 'b []
link