<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=RU link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>ML structures/signatures/functors are gone IMHO due to namespaces and F# modules. As I know attempts to be more close to Haskell fail, so Microsoft decides to switch to ML as own dialect. All decisions were taken because of .NET architecture, sure (and OOP is close to .NET, original Ocaml OOP was not easy adapting). But for me it looks cool. For example, syntax for objects looks canonical, not like something alien for ML. My IMHO is that Microsoft takes right direction in F# as well as C#.</span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0cm'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:donn@avvanta.com">Donn Cave</a><br><b>Sent: </b>12 июля 2018 г. 20:21<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:haskell-cafe@haskell.org">haskell-cafe@haskell.org</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Haskell-cafe] Investing in languages (Was: What is yourfavourite Haskell "aha" moment?)</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>quoth Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org></p><p class=MsoNormal> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> F# is OCaml, ported and adapted to .net.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Or at least it started that way; I don't know how far they have diverged.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rather far. Don't quote me, I know only what I've read about F# and</p><p class=MsoNormal>am not sure I know that, but lots of Objective CAML was tossed, and</p><p class=MsoNormal>of course there's a lot of .NET. The syntax apparently uses significant</p><p class=MsoNormal>white space, so that's one huge step forward if it works - the standard</p><p class=MsoNormal>Objective CAML syntax is quite evil in that respect. But I believe the</p><p class=MsoNormal>interesting parts are gone: modules, and the OOP implementation, which</p><p class=MsoNormal>I have the impression might be one of the more respectable OO designs.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> Donn</p><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>Haskell-Cafe mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:</p><p class=MsoNormal>http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</p><p class=MsoNormal>Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>