F# is a programming language that provides support for functional programming in addition to traditional object-oriented and imperative (procedural) programming.
If I ever wanted to write some O'Caml and need to use .NET as well, I'll take it into consideration over C#. It's a good idea, but I haven't had the need to use it yet.
CL/C/x86 asm is what I use on a day to day basis. C# once in a rare while. I've learned ML/Caml before, although I can't claim to know the OO part of O'Caml.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-22 13:18
I've learned ML/Caml before, although I can't claim to know the OO part of O'Caml. Nobody uses the OO part of OCamL.
>>1
Nobody is up in arms over, notably impressed by or particularly unimpressed by F#. It's the lowest-profile move MS could possibly make. It's not a bad one, of course.
>>9
Very common architecture, good price/performace ratio, rich instruction set(double edged sword, but hey, at least it makes it easier for those that write ASM).
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-23 7:00
>>11
it's only common because intel flooded the market with cheap chips to try to eliminate any competition.
the price/performance ratio isn't really that great any more, you can do much better with ARM.
and "rich" is not the word i'd use to describe it. words like "register poor" and "needlessly complex" come to mind.
also, x86 chips are notoriously power-hungry.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-23 7:06
ARM has good power/speed ratio but it doesnt scales up
>>14,17
You're both retarded. >>14 is just full of shit and >>17 should know better than to make general comparisons between multicore and single core operation.
>>22 I am making comparisons between single core operation and single core operation, dipshit
That's much worse. Look, at least be fair and cut the Atom into quarters. Now you're just as bad as>>14.
Yeah, we'll pair some quad-core ARM with an amazing SGX545 graphics chip. At that point, Quake3 will run at about 60 fps at 1024x768, that is, about as fast as it ran on my PC from 2001.