5 ms·
I'd say F# is closer to filling that gap than OCaml. It's a bit less insistent on being functional and has a more familiar syntax. I find it more practical in g
by chris_pie 1y ago
I'd say F# is closer to filling that gap than OCaml. It's a bit less insistent on being functional and has a more familiar syntax. I find it more practical in general.
- pjerem 1y agoI somehow discovered F# by accident and it’s really an hidden gem. Its ahead of its time in basically every aspect, it’s 100% compatible transparently with the whole C# ecosystem, it’s mature yet still evolving. The type system is something I never saw before : creating types is so ergonomic and fast that you can create custom type for basically any value of your program without boilerplate if you want. It’s really a refreshing language that anyone should try. What I really love with it is that it’s hard to write (when you are learning it) but incredibly clear to read.
- chris_pie 1y agoAlso the Units of Measure are a great feature. I think they're a zero-cost abstraction that Rust users love to mention.
- ossopite 1y agoI'm curious what you have in mind when it comes to ways in which OCaml is insistent on being functional while F# isn't. After all, OCaml has mutable data structures, mutable record fields, for loops and so on. Is it just that more libraries assume immutability and use functional abstractions?
- chris_pie 1y agoTo be fair, my knowledge of F# is a bit basic, but I meant stuff like classes (including abstract ones), interfaces, and the ingrained interop with C#.