F#

So anyway I have begun my foray into F#.  Because I plan to use .net in my next project I think it will be fun to learn F# in addition to C# and use both languges in the project.  To this end I just ordered Expert F#.  Knowing /prog/ is infinitely more expert then me: 

what does /prog/ think about .net?
what does /prog/ think about F# (ocaml)?
What type of tasks are better to be performed in F# vs C# (Math type tasks heavy)?

>>1
You best be trollin' nigga.

>>2
Why the fuck would I troll this?

I want honest oppinions on F#, .net, and what type of things you would do in F# vs C#.

>>3
Shut up troll.
We don't take kindly to your types round these parts.

C#3/Linq has added functional parts, although probably nothing like what F# has to offer.

5GET

EVERY THREAD WILL BE RESPONDED TO

NO EXCEPTIONS

>>6
failGET is fail

>>2>>4
No, actually, that's a good thread.

I don't have an opinion on .net, because I avoid it like a fire. Ah, where is my parrot..?

Too many trolls in my/prog/

>>8
>>2,4
Fixed. Please submit your posts with at least -O1 next time.

>>10
Better to just set your BBFLAGS and forget about it.

Knowing /prog/ is infinitely more expert then me
I don't think you know /prog/, enjoy your illiteracy.

>>12
He did not say he knows /prog/, enjoy your inability to comprehend.

>>13
enjoy your inability to comprehend

>>13
I don't think you know [anything about] /prog/, enjoy your illiteracy.
What else could it mean? That he doesn't know /prog/ personally? Enjoy you're inability to comprehend.

And so the conversation turned... until the sun went down.

>>15
Knowing /prog/ is infinitely more expert then me
He aknowledges /prog/s superiority. It does not mean he knows /prog/.

>>15
^{_{Enjoy you're inability to comprehend.
Enjoy you're inability to
you're inability}
you're}
you're

>>18
Ah yeah, your're.

>>17
He knows a fact about /prog/, that it is superior. Are you stupid?

>>18
YHBT

>>20
By your logic, >>12 is ultimately incorrect, since it's impossible NOT to know anything about something; Because you will know that you don't know anything about it.
That logic doesn't work, and you're wrong. So is >>12 for different reasons.

>>22
>>12 is ultimately incorrect
That's why it's called irony, you idiot. I am facepalming so hard right now.

>>23
So you proved I am right and that both >>12 and you are wrong in an ironical way?
Yeah, after that if I were you I'd facepalm too.

>>24
IHBT

>>1
How would you compare F# to, say, haskell? I don't care about C#.

F# is basically Ocaml with .NET libraries. I suppose you could say, now you have two probloms

>>12-25
Stop trolling me before I rage.

Wow interesting discussion of .net/F#

I definitely love /prog/

>>29
I definitely love /prog/
posts like >>29 and >>30 are just fagging it up.

The faggots on /prog/ don't know enough to make informed decisions. They love old out-dated shit like C and C++. Yet they fail to realize C++'s default of passing objects by value is:
A. Fucking retarded
B. Not very object oriented
Passing object by reference is the rule, not the exception. But C++ fails to recognize that because its old and was designed to solve problems from decades ago.

/prog/ hates .Net solely because its Microsoft with no actual and factual complaints. Trust me, I have asked and not one /prog/ nigger can give significant cause to say .Net sucks.

.Net is actually one of the best and most complete development frameworks to come around in a long time. /prog/ is too busy reinventing the wheel with each app to appreciate something like a world class garbage collector, complete libraries, complete documentation and support from knowledgeable programmers.

As far as F#, it depends on what problems you think it will solve. What are you looking to get out of it that you can't get in C#?

INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS INSTRUCTION SETS

MAYBE IF I KEEP SAYING IT IT'D BORE INTO YOUR THICK HEADED BRAINS

>>31
.NET sucks because it is not really portable. Mono works, but not as well as Java. That said, the .NET library is clearly superior to the Java library. For one thing, it's not self-obsessed (i.e. no "MSButton"s in .NET, unlike Java/Swing/whatever's "JButton"s).

However, if you're just doing Windows programming, then .NET is the clear way to go, unless you NEED the program to run on a vanilla Windows XP install with no internet connection.

>>34

You are only half way there. Since C# and the CLR are published standards they can be ported to any platform. The only real problem is that they are not yet ported to many pltforms, not that it can't and never will be.

There are .Net implementations from MS on:
Windows
OSX (not Mono)
Moible Devices

And the only non-MS one is:
Linux

The mono guys seem to have their priorities wrong. Instead of implementing the newest version of the core framework, they are implementing things like Silverlight and DLR.

>>35
Oh, yes, the Mac OS X support is just so great.

[quote]
The current version of SSCLI is 2.0, which contains most of the classes and features of version 2.0 of the .NET Framework. Unlike the previous version however, it is only supported on Windows XP SP2.
[/quote]

Microsoft is not committed to portability in the same way Sun is. If Microsoft had really cared to fully port .NET to OS X and/or Linux, then it may have had a really good chance of displacing Java.

Basically, if you're writing an application for mass market appeal, you want to target Windows 2000 and higher. Maybe Mac OSX too. But certainly not Linux or any of the BSDs or anything else similarly esoteric.

>>36

The SSCLI isn't meant to be a consumer technology. Its a learning tool. A tool developers are supposed to use to implement versions of .Net on other platforms.

>>35
It's not portable. Period. The reason comes back to the whole Microsoft thing, but not in the way that you might so casually brush off as Microsoft-hatred. It's because they control the specifications and write them with their own interests in mind -- regardless of how well-designed the .Net platform is, it's still written by one single proprietor targeting one OS family (Windows), and many of the design decisions they made reflect this. Even if a third party creates a .Net implementation for some other OS, it's not going to get first-party support and won't affect the decisions MS makes in the future.

It's a good platform but fundamentally unsustainable for cross-platform development. This is why people make independent design groups for these things -- to keep any one vendor's interests from clouding the overall design with decisions specific to their own implementation.

>>39
A bit like OOXML, etc.