F# programming language

[clintonG]

Re: F# programming language

Generally speaking, only when using a 12 tone diatonic scale [1]

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee. com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=-...8&z=17&l=0&m=h

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic


"Raymond Basque" <_NOSPAM_rbasqu e@_NOSPAM_jednm .comwrote in message
news:eWkcpjyDHH A.4024@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

Still wrong. F# would be Gb :)
>
>

[James Crosswell]

Re: F# programming language

Jon Harrop wrote:

I'm no expert on this stuff but, from my point of view, if you're trying to
create a technology that makes GUI design easy enough for non-coders then
you need a GUI, not another ASCII language. That's why I don't understand
what hole XAML is supposed to fill.

You're not actually supposed to write XAML - just like you're not
supposed to manually code gif or jpg files... it's a data format used to
store structures that will typically be designed/modified by design
tools like Sparkle (or whatever they're calling it now).

For one thing, it seems to be a bad programming language (from a language
design point of view),

I don't think it is really a programming language... no more than HTML
is a programming language. You create HTML template files for your
ASP.NET programs and the functionality for those GUIs is provided by a
separate piece of the puzzle - i.e. your C#/VB.NET/Chrome or whatever code.

I think you're probably missing the point. Check out some of the demos
on Sparkle on channel9.msdn.c om - that gives you a good idea of how
useful XAML can be.

Best Regards,

James Crosswell
Microforge.net LLC

http://www.microforge.net

[James Crosswell]

Re: F# programming language

clintonG wrote:

Generally speaking, only when using a 12 tone diatonic scale [1]

Didn't you mention something about simplifying stuff up above ;-)

Best Regards,

James Crosswell
Microforge.net LLC

http://www.microforge.net

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

James Crosswell wrote:

Wow! I guess it's a program that lent itself to a functional solution
quite nicely.

That would seem to be most programs. I've written everything from symbolic
maths programs in OCaml that were 100x the code density of C and much
faster to graphical applications (Presenta) that were 4-5x the code density
of C++ and faster.

Why would your users care what language it was written in?

Especially given that the whole point of a CLR is interoperabilit y. Maybe
they wanted to develop it without any decent developers. ;-)

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

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

[James Crosswell]

Re: F# programming language

Jon Harrop wrote:

James Crosswell wrote:

>Wow! I guess it's a program that lent itself to a functional solution
>quite nicely.

>
That would seem to be most programs.

Like a business application that has grids and dialogs to edit
"entities" that are stored in a database? That's what the majority of
applications seem to be... but I fail to see how a functional solution
would reduce the amount of code for these apps. Don't get me wrong, I
think functional programming languages have their applications but just
because you have a hammer doesn't mean that everything else is a nail.

>Why would your users care what language it was written in?

>
Especially given that the whole point of a CLR is interoperabilit y. Maybe
they wanted to develop it without any decent developers. ;-)

Aye, most developers don't get much exposure to functional programming
(outside of their university degrees). It's a slightly different mindset
for sure.

Best Regards,

James Crosswell
Microforge.net LLC

http://www.microforge.net

[Jon Harrop]

Re: F# programming language

James Crosswell wrote:

Like a business application that has grids and dialogs to edit
"entities" that are stored in a database? That's what the majority of
applications seem to be... but I fail to see how a functional solution
would reduce the amount of code for these apps.

Sounds like an ideal task for higher-order functions. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I
think functional programming languages have their applications but just
because you have a hammer doesn't mean that everything else is a nail.

Sure. That was based on my own experience, which is mostly science/
graphics/compilers.

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

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

[Kevin Spencer]

Re: F# programming language

Yes, I realized it while eating my Thanksgiving dinner. I haven't touched a
guitar in 10 years now. Back then I would have known it right off the bat.
I'm so ashamed!

:-(

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Ministry of Software Development

http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

Never trust a dunderhead with a blunderbuss.


"clintonG" <csgallagher@RE MOVETHISTEXTmet romilwaukee.com wrote in message
news:e6Rfr2yDHH A.4808@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

Generally speaking, only when using a 12 tone diatonic scale [1]
>
<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee. com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=-...8&z=17&l=0&m=h
>
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic
>
>
"Raymond Basque" <_NOSPAM_rbasqu e@_NOSPAM_jednm .comwrote in message
news:eWkcpjyDHH A.4024@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>Still wrong. F# would be Gb :)
>>
>>

>
>

[Kevin Spencer]

Re: F# programming language

I would think that the greatest benefit of XAML is eXtensibility. Being XML,
it is inherently extensible, platform-independent, and transformable (via
XSL) to virtually any GUI format.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Ministry of Software Development

http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

Never trust a dunderhead with a blunderbuss.


"James Crosswell" <james@microfor ge.netwrote in message
news:uWl6tfyDHH A.3224@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

Laurent Bugnion wrote:

>And you're absolutely right, XAML is not thought just for web
>programming. In fact, AFAIK, Microsoft sees it more as a replacement for
>WinForms than for ASP.NET.

>
Indeed, one of the main benefits of XAML is that it separates the code
from the interface (so the coders can work on logic while designers work
on interfaces)... Such separation has existing for web based apps, in one
form or another, for years - so the biggest benefits of XAML are probably
for Windows apps.
>
Best Regards,
>
James Crosswell
Microforge.net LLC
http://www.microforge.net

[Christopher Ireland]

Re: F# programming language

Jon Harrop wrote:
| 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 considering using it to develop commercial applications on the
| Windows platform.

I've just read on Don Syme's blog that you've started a blog of you're own
... all the best of luck with it!

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

--
Christopher Ireland

"Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts."
Jeff Foxworthy

[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#!

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... ;-)

--
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 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?

--
Christopher Ireland

"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
Steven Wright

[Laurent Bugnion]

Re: F# programming language

Hi,

Kevin Spencer wrote:

Yes, I realized it while eating my Thanksgiving dinner. I haven't touched a
guitar in 10 years now. Back then I would have known it right off the bat.
I'm so ashamed!
>
:-(
Kevin Spencer

And now it's on Internet for ever and ever bwahahahaha ;-)

Don't let this spoil your holidays.

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

[Lucian Wischik]

Re: F# programming language

"Christophe r Ireland" <cireland@gmail .comwrote:

>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?

The bugs were of a completely different nature. My F# code ends up
being far more ambitious in scope, far more sophisticated in its data
structures and algorithms, deals with more complex problems. The bugs
I get in it tend to be conceptual ones of algorithm design. My C# code
ends up less ambitious, more "engineery" . The bugs I get in it tend to
be normal bugs, like missed initializations or unkept invariants. Also
the C# code never has the same "agility" as F#, the agility to easily
restructure the algorithms and datastructures.

The F# compiler tends to catch more bugs than the C# one does. That's
because it's somehow easier in F# to describe your abstractions in the
type system.

When there are normal bugs in F#, though, they're harder to trace than
C#. I think that's because F# code is more concise and tends to use
"lambdas" a lot more. Consider this F# code:
foldr (fn x y =x+y) 0 mylist;
versus this C# code:
int sum=0;
foreach (int x in mylist)
{ sum+=x;
}
In the C# it's easy to know where to set your breakpoint and where to
run it. In the F# it's not.

--
Lucian

[Christopher Ireland]

Re: F# programming language

Lucian Wischik wrote:
| The bugs were of a completely different nature.

That's very interesting, thank you for your insights!

--
Christopher Ireland

"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
Steven Wright

[Laurent Bugnion]

Re: F# programming language

Hi,

Lucian Wischik wrote:

The bugs were of a completely different nature. My F# code ends up
being far more ambitious in scope, far more sophisticated in its data
structures and algorithms, deals with more complex problems. The bugs
I get in it tend to be conceptual ones of algorithm design. My C# code
ends up less ambitious, more "engineery" . The bugs I get in it tend to
be normal bugs, like missed initializations or unkept invariants. Also
the C# code never has the same "agility" as F#, the agility to easily
restructure the algorithms and datastructures.
>
The F# compiler tends to catch more bugs than the C# one does. That's
because it's somehow easier in F# to describe your abstractions in the
type system.
>
When there are normal bugs in F#, though, they're harder to trace than
C#. I think that's because F# code is more concise and tends to use
"lambdas" a lot more. Consider this F# code:
foldr (fn x y =x+y) 0 mylist;
versus this C# code:
int sum=0;
foreach (int x in mylist)
{ sum+=x;
}
In the C# it's easy to know where to set your breakpoint and where to
run it. In the F# it's not.

Interesting post, thanks for sharing.

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 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.

What are your thoughts?
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