Comments on: An introduction to functional programming

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:24:00 +0000

Thanks, YaoyuHe — glad you found it helpful.

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Thanks, YaoyuHe — glad you found it helpful.

By: YaoyuHe

YaoyuHe — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:23:00 +0000

this article is impressive and helps me a lot. fantastic!

By: YaoyuHe

YaoyuHe — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:23:00 +0000

this article is impressive and helps me a lot. fantastic!

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:33:00 +0000

Thanks for the additional info, Reedo. I haven't used F# yet myself, I've only read about it.

By: Reedo

Reedo — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:55:00 +0000

The relationship between F# and OCaml is a bit more complicated. F# has borrowed liberally from OCaml from the start but it's also designed for .Net, so its object model and various other features are closer to C# than OCaml (null checks, type casts). Plus, with the #light option for F# (which everybody recommends and uses in practice), not even its "core" syntax matches OCaml's as closely as before.

That having being said, without #light and with some possible reworking, OCaml code can still compile in F#.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:33:00 +0000

Thanks for the additional info, Reedo. I haven’t used F# yet myself, I’ve only read about it.

By: Reedo

Reedo — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:55:00 +0000

The relationship between F# and OCaml is a bit more complicated. F# has borrowed liberally from OCaml from the start but it’s also designed for .Net, so its object model and various other features are closer to C# than OCaml (null checks, type casts). Plus, with the #light option for F# (which everybody recommends and uses in practice), not even its “core” syntax matches OCaml’s as closely as before.

That having being said, without #light and with some possible reworking, OCaml code can still compile in F#.