Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yetkin 1998 days ago
"It will help if you are already familiar with functional programming languages in the ML family (e.g., OCaml, F#, Standard ML), or with Haskell—we provide a quick review of some basic concepts if you're a little rusty, but if you feel you need more background, there are many useful resources freely available on the web, e.g., Learn F#, F# for fun and profit, Introduction to Caml, the Real World OCaml book, or the OCaml MOOC."

Isn't it yet another copy of OCAML? I think it shouldn't say familiar but something different. I really don't underestimate any effort to make OCAML available on dot-net, but referring to excellent OCAML books can't be explained by simple 'familiarity'...
2 comments
scscsc 1998 days ago
You are probably thinking of F#, not F*. Very different languages.
link
studius 1998 days ago
"Programs written in F* can be translated to OCaml, F#, and C for execution. ... The latest version of F* is written entirely in a common subset of F* and F#, and bootstraps in both OCaml and F#."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F*_(programming_language)

link
travv0 1997 days ago
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with that quote. The languages that F* can be compiled to and the ones it’s written in aren’t relevant to what was being discussed.
link
RobertKerans 1997 days ago
Why is that relevant though? You could also write a version of (for example) Prolog or Forth or Lisp using OCaml that would compile to OCaml for execution. Doesn't mean any of those are OCaml. Coq isn't OCaml. Haxe isn't OCaml. The fact that F* is written in, uses a subset of the syntax of and can be compiled to F# (or OCaml) is an implementation detail, the language and the purpose of the language aren't to be OCaml/F#.
link
vmchale 1997 days ago
> Isn't it yet another copy of OCAML

No, closer to ATS maybe?

link