|
|
|
|
|
|
by MichaelGG
4604 days ago
|
|
|
F#'s design was almost completely handled by Don Syme, in MS Research Cambridge. It is highly unlikely some PM jumped in and insisted it must do things. The OOP part is rather coherent; I'm not sure what's bolted on - any examples? In fact, things like object expressions do parts of OOP even better than Java/C#. Overall the syntax for OOP is rather concise and neat. Having proper interop with .NET and hence the OOP is ... pretty key to making a successful .NET language. Otherwise you lose one major point of being able to use .NET libraries. |
|
|
I'm saying I'm not sure why the OOP exists at all. Someone else pointed at that OCaml has those elements as well, and maybe that's the reason. Just in my own use, I never felt the inclination to use the OOP at all, and their existence felt like this part of the language that I didn't understand, didn't want to understand, but was there nonetheless.