26

Re: F# hello wordl: why two operators instead of one?

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: MH>> I can safely state that without f# current forces implement and supervise this functional we could not. VD> and you were mistaken. There are also languages not less powerful than f#, and special means for parsing and typification. And on them handling of all that you described will be where easier than on f#. In what? On everyone to a case I will explain the initial thought - I stated that F# for us appeared is much more productive than C#. I did not state that only F# more powerfully and there are no other comparable languages on capacity. Well time mentioned about others "languages not less powerful than f#, and special means for parsing and typification" it is interesting to learn that  in view of. At once I will tell about Nemerle (I think it there will be 1st in your list) - in course and even at the initial stage considered it as a variant, but selected F#. Though I will agree that Nemerle as a whole even more powerful in comparison with F#, at the expense of macroes. But to us macroes were less important, there was a convenience to the functional approach more important. And that's it for code writing in the functional style, I consider ML-syntax more conveniently (personally it very much is pleasant to me). In our case just parsing - enough simple, and here F# did not play a special role though creation of parcers with the help of technics of parcers-COMBINATORS appeared enough both interesting and floppy and productive business. The main complexity lies in a functional of the subsequent manipulation data structures - their any analysis and conversion. And here it is interesting, what on yours (and why) allows to do "where easier than on f#"?