Well, it literally is C#. It's a tongue-in-cheek parody of novelty languages, but it's describing .NET (the "two languages" it talks about are C# and F# respectively).
Guys, when you do a new language, syntax is nearly completely uninteresting, because it's exchangeable. Please answer some of these questions, instead:
1. memory management strategy [x]
2. target platform [?]
3. evaluation semantics (lazy/eager) [?]
4. argument passing strategy [?]
5. if type-safe: overloading [?]
6. if type-safe: parametric polymorphism [?]
7. if type-safe: (nominal/structural) subtyping [?]
8. if type-safe: module system/language [?]
9. if compiled to machine code: separate compilation [?]
10. if compiled to machine code: ABI [?]
11. if interpreted: multi-threading capability (Ok, this one's a hit on python) [?]
12. ... I probably missed a couple of data points
edit: I should have seen sooner that it is a parody, but my point still stands.
13. Demonstrate pieces of code and classes of tasks where your shiny new language excels over idiomatic code in languages A/B/C, in terms of safety, readability, performance, brevity or whatever else category you consider important
I thought something a bit off when this purported language sprang forth fully-featured from its author's brow with all of the library support for F(M)ANG adventures.
Since we are talking about C# and F# here, I wish F# was completely transformable to C# and backwards.
Currently the F# has some pains in .NET ecosystem. The new C# Source Generators can't work in F# because they generate C# code. F# doesn't have partial classes, while C# has.
If there were 1=1 tool to convert between F# and C# (it would not need to retain the syntax, but behavior) we could mix them in same project. That would be a dream.
22 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 62.0 ms ] threadIs this a new language for the CLR? In that case why does it not support Windows?
It is also pretty interesting that it already have 1000 packages even though it is still unreleased.
This page seems to not be ready for general consumption in any case
1. memory management strategy [x]
2. target platform [?]
3. evaluation semantics (lazy/eager) [?]
4. argument passing strategy [?]
5. if type-safe: overloading [?]
6. if type-safe: parametric polymorphism [?]
7. if type-safe: (nominal/structural) subtyping [?]
8. if type-safe: module system/language [?]
9. if compiled to machine code: separate compilation [?]
10. if compiled to machine code: ABI [?]
11. if interpreted: multi-threading capability (Ok, this one's a hit on python) [?]
12. ... I probably missed a couple of data points
edit: I should have seen sooner that it is a parody, but my point still stands.
They forgot to mention it's open source and backed by (M).
//Summon Tony the Pony
This is C# and a snippet of F# and the "docs" redirect to Dotnet docs.
Currently the F# has some pains in .NET ecosystem. The new C# Source Generators can't work in F# because they generate C# code. F# doesn't have partial classes, while C# has.
If there were 1=1 tool to convert between F# and C# (it would not need to retain the syntax, but behavior) we could mix them in same project. That would be a dream.
Since .NET 6 is so different to early .NET would it generate interest if it was rebranded?
O RLY? Which of those companies use it in at-scale production?
Is this a reference to gentoolinux's package manager being the coolest of all packagemanagers?