F# programming language

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

Christopher Ireland wrote:

Jon Harrop wrote:
| Christopher Ireland wrote:
|| P.S. it would be great if ray tracer compiled with the latest
|| publicly available version of F#!
|
| No, that's a really bad idea. If you can tweak the code then you'll
| sink an enormous amount of time into fiddling with it. Take yesterday
| for example, I barely got any work done... ;-)
>
Out of interest, do you find your code more or less buggy in F# than in
C#? If there is a bug, in which language is it easier to trace and fix?

I'm coming from a C++ vs ML background, so I can't comment on C# vs F#
specifically. For ML vs C++, I'd say:

1. ML is ~10x more productive, i.e. 1/10th development times.
2. ML has 2-5x higher code density.
3. ML code is much more reliable than C++ code but I can't quantify how
much.

I guess the reliability of ML code is reflected in the development time.

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

Christopher Ireland wrote:

If there is a bug, in which language is it easier to trace and fix?

When I started programming in OCaml I found its errors messages mostly very
good but sometimes devilishly obscure. F# is in a similar boat.

However, it only took me 6 months to get more efficient in OCaml programming
than I was in C++, having been programming in C++ for 10 years.

Type inference is the main difference. You rarely declare types in F# code
because the compilers infers them all for you. That is usually great
because you write a lot less code and the code is a lot clearer. However,
when it goes wrong, the error messages can be confusing primarily because
they'll contain the wrong types because the wrong types have been inferred.

I should also mention that, for a large class of problems, F# code tends to
work first time once it is compiled. Aside from good language design, I
don't think there is any logical reason to expect that but it certainly
works. There are examples where F# is less effective at checking your code
but it always seems to remain significantly more effective than the
competition.

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

Laurent Bugnion wrote:

One more question though: You mention that C# is more "engineery" . Is it
your opinion (like I think after reading what you wrote) that C# is more
targeted at software engineers (like me) and F# at scientists?

I'm a scientist and I'd actually have said quite the opposite. F# seems to
be taking leaves from Matlab's book and I consider Matlab to be an
engineer's tool.

There's a lot of overlap between scientists and engineers, of course, and I
think a real killer feature for F# will be a graphical version of the
interactive mode. It is actually really easy to start writing one, you just
replace the pretty printer for a given type with one that pops up a window.

I got the
feeling that scientists are more able to deal with the abstraction level
you mention, while engineers prefer to see what's going on in the code.

We probably need a quiz to answer that. If the engineers in the audience can
understand the comparison I drew between the C++ and OCaml implementations
of my ray tracer then I think they'll be fine with F#:

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/free/ray_tracer/comparison.html

I'll put a similar page up comparing C# and F# implementations if you
like...

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists

[Laurent Bugnion]

Re: F# programming language

Hi,

Jon Harrop wrote:

Laurent Bugnion wrote:

>One more question though: You mention that C# is more "engineery" . Is it
>your opinion (like I think after reading what you wrote) that C# is more
>targeted at software engineers (like me) and F# at scientists?

>
I'm a scientist and I'd actually have said quite the opposite. F# seems to
be taking leaves from Matlab's book and I consider Matlab to be an
engineer's tool.

Really? I remember Matlab from my engineer's school day, wouldn't like
to use that to build a product (I mean, something I can actually sell to
someone). It was a great tool to study mathematical transformations and
the like, but when I want something done, I really prefer C#.

There's a lot of overlap between scientists and engineers, of course, and I
think a real killer feature for F# will be a graphical version of the
interactive mode. It is actually really easy to start writing one, you just
replace the pretty printer for a given type with one that pops up a window.
>

>I got the
>feeling that scientists are more able to deal with the abstraction level
>you mention, while engineers prefer to see what's going on in the code.

>
We probably need a quiz to answer that. If the engineers in the audience can
understand the comparison I drew between the C++ and OCaml implementations
of my ray tracer then I think they'll be fine with F#:
>

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/free/ray_tracer/comparison.html

>
I'll put a similar page up comparing C# and F# implementations if you
like...

That would be nice, but I don't think I will work with F# in the near
future (no time...), so do it only if you really have the time, or if
you gain something from it.

Thanks!
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

[Ben Voigt]

Re: F# programming language


"Jon Harrop" <jon@ffconsulta ncy.comwrote in message
news:456574ea$0 $8713$ed2619ec@ ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.n et...

>
Microsoft Research are developing a functional programming language called
F# for .NET and I've been playing with it recently. I've uploaded some
demos here:
>

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/

>
I'm keen to see what Windows developers think of this language as we're

Useful for math and logic, not so much for GUI stuff which really requires
imperative programming. But .NET will let you call back and forth so use an
appropriate mixture of languages.

considering using it to develop commercial applications on the Windows
platform.

Last I checked F# was only available for research with no option for a
commercial license. That could be an insurmountable obstacle.

>
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/product...for_scientists

[Christopher Ireland]

Re: F# programming language

"Jon Harrop" <jon@ffconsulta ncy.comwrote in message
news:45670d91$0 $8741$ed2619ec@ ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.n et...

>
I'll put a similar page up comparing C# and F# implementations if you
like...

Thanks again for your input, Jon.

Yes please <g>!

Cheers!

Chris.

[Lucian Wischik]

Re: F# programming language

Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsulta ncy.comwrote:

>Type inference is the main difference. You rarely declare types in F# code
>because the compilers infers them all for you. That is usually great
>because you write a lot less code and the code is a lot clearer. However,
>when it goes wrong, the error messages can be confusing primarily because
>they'll contain the wrong types because the wrong types have been inferred.

The most important F# lesson I learnt: always declare complete types
for my functions! And declare types for any complicated-looking
variables. This habit reduced my type-inference-debugging-time a lot.

--
Lucian

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

Laurent Bugnion wrote:

Jon Harrop wrote:

>I'm a scientist and I'd actually have said quite the opposite. F# seems
>to be taking leaves from Matlab's book and I consider Matlab to be an
>engineer's tool.

>
Really? I remember Matlab from my engineer's school day, wouldn't like
to use that to build a product (I mean, something I can actually sell to
someone). It was a great tool to study mathematical transformations and
the like, but when I want something done, I really prefer C#.

You wouldn't use Matlab to make an application but you might write a toolbox
for Matlab and sell it. I think it is possible to do the same thing for F#
but, at the same time, you can write your applications in F# instead of C#.

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

Ben Voigt wrote:

"Jon Harrop" <jon@ffconsulta ncy.comwrote in message
news:456574ea$0 $8713$ed2619ec@ ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.n et...

>Microsoft Research are developing a functional programming language
>called F# for .NET and I've been playing with it recently. I've uploaded
>some demos here:
>>
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/
>>
>I'm keen to see what Windows developers think of this language as we're

>
Useful for math and logic, not so much for GUI stuff which really requires
imperative programming.

I'm going to try to write some GUI programs and I'll see how F# compares.
Presumably C# is likely to come out on top when there is a big GUI and not
much under the hood?

But .NET will let you call back and forth so use
an appropriate mixture of languages.

I've obviously been writing F# code that calls C# APIs but I've yet to try
it the other way around. I assume you have to restrict yourself to the C#
subset of F# when you want your F# code to be callable from C#.

Potentially I could write code in F# and sell it as a DLL for other .NET
programmers to use and they would never even know that I wrote it in F#.
I'd like try that but I've no idea if it is feasible... :-)

>considering using it to develop commercial applications on the Windows
>platform.

>
Last I checked F# was only available for research with no option for a
commercial license. That could be an insurmountable obstacle.

I'm sure you can write commercial software in F# and sell it. I think the
author is trying to get the whole thing released under a commercial license
so you will even be able to bundle the F# compiler with your product, e.g.
to do metaprogramming .

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists

[Christopher Ireland]

Re: F# programming language

"Jon Harrop" <jon@ffconsulta ncy.comwrote in message
news:45673ac1$0 $8712$ed2619ec@ ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.n et...

I've obviously been writing F# code that calls C# APIs but I've yet to try
it the other way around. I assume you have to restrict yourself to the C#
subset of F# when you want your F# code to be callable from C#.

I think it must be, given that the assemblies built from F# are MSIL.

Try downloading Reflector for .NET (http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/) and
opening your raytracer.exe .. you'll be able to see the whole thing in C#
(or even Delphi, for that matter <g>).

Cheers!

Chris.

[Lucian Wischik]

Re: F# programming language

Laurent Bugnion <galasoft-lb@bluewin.chwr ote:

>One more question though: You mention that C# is more "engineery" . Is it
>your opinion (like I think after reading what you wrote) that C# is more
>targeted at software engineers (like me) and F# at scientists?

We're called software engineers but I don't think there's very much
engineering discipline in our work. We're expected to produce lots of
features, quickly, and track down lots of bugs, and we often don't
even have the time to sit back and calmly document how what we've done
works. F# seems good for this audience.

--
Lucian

[Laurent Bugnion]

Re: F# programming language

Hi,

Lucian Wischik wrote:

Laurent Bugnion <galasoft-lb@bluewin.chwr ote:

>One more question though: You mention that C# is more "engineery" . Is it
>your opinion (like I think after reading what you wrote) that C# is more
>targeted at software engineers (like me) and F# at scientists?

>
We're called software engineers but I don't think there's very much
engineering discipline in our work. We're expected to produce lots of
features, quickly, and track down lots of bugs, and we often don't
even have the time to sit back and calmly document how what we've done
works. F# seems good for this audience.

I am lucky enough to work for Siemens, where software engineers are
engineers ;-) We do a lot of architecture and design, for example.

Also, note that in Switzerland, you can only use the title software
engineer if you are really an engineer. In my case, I did an engineer
school in electricity and electronics before I made a postgrade study in
software. Non-engineers who followed the same postgrade are not allowed
to use the title software engineer.

Greetings,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

[Christopher Ireland]

Re: F# programming language

"Laurent Bugnion" <galasoft-lb@bluewin.chwr ote in message
news:eT%23H7gAE HHA.4668@TK2MSF TNGP03.phx.gbl. ..

Also, note that in Switzerland, you can only use the title software
engineer if you are really an engineer. In my case, I did an engineer
school in electricity and electronics before I made a postgrade study in
software. Non-engineers who followed the same postgrade are not allowed to
use the title software engineer.

No duck typing in Switzerland, then!

;-)

Cheers!

Chris.

[Lebesgue]

Re: F# programming language

>Useful for math and logic, not so much for GUI stuff which really

>requires
>imperative programming.

>
I'm going to try to write some GUI programs and I'll see how F# compares.
Presumably C# is likely to come out on top when there is a big GUI and not
much under the hood?

Just a side note: One can use F# to write ASP.NET applications:

http://cs.hubfs.net/blogs/tomasp/archive/2006/08/13/475.aspx

Project page: http://www.codeplex.com/fscodedom

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

Christopher Ireland wrote:

P.S. it would be great if ray tracer compiled with the latest publicly
available version of F#!

A new version of F# has just come out that can compile my ray tracer! :-)

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists