Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bunderbunder 3108 days ago
Agreed for ML. However, F# is not exactly ML. It lives on top of, and has to interoperate with, the existing .NET ecosystem.

That means, for example, that a lot of the datatypes you'll end up dealing with are object-oriented. Those can be difficult to work with in a generic way without resorting to reflection.
1 comments
burgerdev 3108 days ago
Sounds a bit like the Scala story: could be a really nice language, but the bagagge ... :)
link
bunderbunder 3108 days ago
It is a really nice language. Being able to interoperate with .NET is a strength, not a weakness. It's quite principled in its design, it's just that some of its design principles are pragmatic ones.

Concrete example: It doesn't have typeclasses. This was a deliberate and thoughtful move. The designers haven't been able to figure out how to implement type classes in a way that wouldn't interact poorly with the rest of the .NET ecosystem, so they've opted to keep them out rather than introducing a hacky implementation. Contrast this with Scala, where it's very easy to accidentally break compatibility with Java code when you're working with traits.

link
catnaroek 3108 days ago
> Concrete example: It doesn't have typeclasses.

It's not like type classes are themselves suuuper-principled.

> Being able to interoperate with .NET is a strength, not a weakness.

Being able to interoperate with .NET is a good thing. Letting the .NET object model permeate the whole language's type structure is less of a good thing (to put it mildly). OCaml did the right thing w.r.t. objects: You can use objects if you so wish, but the language doesn't ram them down your throat.

link
tueo23094 3108 days ago
F# and OCaml are different languages with different goals. It should come as no surprise there are different sacrifices between the languages.

Breaking compatibility with .NET, which is F#'s biggest benefit is counter productive.

link
catnaroek 3108 days ago
My suggestion wouldn't “break compatibility” with .NET any more than, say, C++/CLI (or whatever it is called nowadays) does.
link
vittore 3108 days ago
Wait it has https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-refe...
link
dualogy 3108 days ago
Those are essentially ADTs --- not "type-classes" in the ML/Haskell/etc sense at all.
link