[4hthth4]

You could just use OCaml, of which it is an obvious copy. You wouldn't get the whole MS stack, for better or worse.

[seanmcdirmid]

Don Syme has added some interesting features to F# like type providers, so I think it is OK to say that F# has transcended its OCaml roots to become an interesting language in its own right.

[groovy2shoes]

Not to mention the approach to OOP is rather different in F#. It's syntactically and culturally different. Most OCaml programmers I know avoid OOP for the most part, whereas it's embraced to some extent in F#. Seems like a sort of "functional first, but feel free to use objects as you see fit" philosophy in F# versus a "functional always, objects are a failed experiment" philosophy in OCaml.

I don't mean to imply any judgment here, I'm just noting another difference between F# and OCaml.

[4hthth4]

> It's syntactically and culturally different.

Most people seem to think it's not syntactically very different: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/179492/f-changes-to-ocaml

[groovy2shoes]

I mean specifically the syntax for OOP support. Otherwise, much of the syntax is the same.

[imsofuture]

Absolutely, I have much love for OCaml.