8 ms·
I think it's two things. If you write a lot of F# then if anyone leaves you need to replace them and it's harder than finding a C# developer. Secondly most of
by bbcbasic 9y ago
I think it's two things.
If you write a lot of F# then if anyone leaves you need to replace them and it's harder than finding a C# developer.
Secondly most of the libraries you interop with are C# and so you have to go through interop which is more annoying.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoC# interop doesn't seem that hard: https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/completeness-seamless-dotnet-interop/ https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/completeness-seamles... Also, from what I've read it's easy enough to use F# code from C# if you wrap it in an object. F# is multiparadigmatic, including support for FP and OOP.
- chicocode 9y agoI think interop is not hard, but F# still enforces functional way over imperative. Write imperative code on Scala is easier then write imperative code on F#
- ZenoArrow 9y agoOkay, but wrapping functional F# code in .NET objects abstracts the functional internals away from C#. C# code can then use the F# object as if it was using a C# object. Does that address the issue you were referring to, or were you referring to something else?
- jmcomets 9y agoWhat's surprising is that Scala/Java basically has the same issues, but Scala seems to be more popular due to early adoption by several industry actors (Twitter IIRC).