Since the publication of the F# article in the MSDN Launch magazine, I've gotten some feedback from readers (for which I heartily thank you all, by the way), but in particular I've gotten two emails from "tms" that I thought deserved more widespread notice and commentary.
I'm happy to give full credit to "tms" for his comments, but thus far I haven't heard back from him saying it was OK to do so; that said, his points are valid, and I think important for the rest of the world to hear, so I'm posting this under a pseudonym until he gives permission to offer up his real name.
In his first note, tms says....
I appreciated the (F#) article. I would like to point out one error.
Like many functional languages, F# permits currying ...
Your example does not demonstrate currying well, as it could be written in any non-currying language such as C#. (It is indeed an "idiom" that one uses in C# to manually do the equivalent of currying, where desired.)
Here are two statements, either of which would demonstrate currying:
Neither of these two statements have any direct equivalent in C#, because C# lacks the concept of currying.
What is significant about these statements, is "add 5" -- the use of add with only one of its two parameters. This is the essence of currying. It takes a function that requires n parameters, and directly turns it into a function that requires n-1 parameters, with no need to name or otherwise talk about the "missing" parameter.
Agreed, but even there, it's possible to do in C# with the use of (multiples of) anonymous methods. For example, the "add5" example you use can be seen as something akin to this:
Your second example, using the pipeline operator can, in fact, also be done using C# and a well-established set of delegate types arranged into a pipeline, a la how PowerShell passes objects (or lists of objects) from one Cmdlet to another....
... but your point is still well taken; there's much better examples of currying in the world; Don Syme (who tech-reviewed the article) openly questioned whether or not currying was a good thing to bring up in this introduction, and I argued that I thought it was necessary to at least open the subject in order to explain some of the inherent power of functional programming (and, by extension, some of the motivation for learning F#).
Net result: there is some smoothing of the story on F# yet to be done. You only find this out from presenting a story to an audience, hearing their feedback, and iterating on it further.
In his second note, tms points out
Your evolution of
I think this could use a better explanation about what is being shown.
When I first read it, my reaction was:
'I can do the same thing in C# -- you just replaced an an expression in the language, "(i, i*i)" with a function that returns the value of that expression, "compute2 i".'
It wasn't until I sat down to write the C# equivalent that I saw what the benefit is: in F# it is easy to define functions anywhere. In C#, the code would have occurred somewhere in a method of some class, so if "compute2" were a static method on the same class, it would be just as easy to use -- it would simply be "compute2(i)". But in C# I can't embed it as is done in F#. Somewhere else in the class I have to add the function:
== can be turned into ==>
It would be really cool if C# let you define a function locally, something like:
Is that the benefit you were describing?
Weeeelll..... I'd like to say that was the case, but in truth, I don't think I had that in mind when I was writing the article. In fact, it's a bit hard, looking back, exactly what I had in mind during that particular section of the article, except perhaps to try and explain a bit more of the F# syntax. I think what I was trying to do was show how functions could be used in a higher-order manner, but with a simple (arguably trivial) manner, which, in retrospect, doesn't really do the concept of higher-order functions much justice. I'd like to use as my excuse the technical writer's traditional escape, which is to say, "Hey, you try explaining a complex concept in 5000 words, along with introducing basic syntax and still make it relevant to the audience", but in truth, that's just an excuse, and I admit it. *sigh* Fortunately, folks like you are around to point out the flaws in my prose, and (hopefully) make it stronger the next time around. :-)
The other thing to remember, too, that as with most language comparisons, it isn't so much a matter of what I can or can't do in a particular language vis-a-vis a different language (F# vis-a-vis C#, in this case), but more a question of "What does this language allow me to express as a first-class concept that the other one forces me to express via much lower-level constructs?" Just about everything that F# offers can be replicated in C#--thanks in no small part to anonymous methods/lambdas, to be frank--but forces the C# developer into writing much of the scaffolding that has to be in place. (If you think about it, this has to be true, at least at some level, because both F# and C# run on top of the CLR, which means they each have to 'boil down' to CIL at some level, and given the relatively high level of fidelity between C# and CIL, almost any construct expressed in CIL can be 'redrawn' in C#, if we're willing to.)
Case in point: consider the snippet tms calls out above:
If we take this snippet and run it through the F# compiler grinder, then look at the results in ILDasm, we get an interesting comparison of how F#'s first-class support for functions maps into C#'s view of the world.
(You'll note I spared you the huge text dump of "ildasm /out:example.il example.exe", since that would have more noise than signal. Feel free to perform the experiment on your own, if you'd like to see the raw output.)
As you can see here, the F# "top-level" code gets stored into a static method _main stored in the class "<StartupCode$example>" in the namespace "<StartupCode$example>", and yes, _main() is marked with the CIL ".entrypoint" directive, telling the CLR that this is where life begins for this particular assembly. Notice as well how the filename becomes the class "container" for the functions defined therein (the class "Example"), and the functions in particular--compute2() and compute3()--are exported as public static methods. You can see, however, that their parameter types are definitely more complex than the form we would use in traditional idiomatic C#, tuples instead of a list of individual parameters, which tms tries to keep fidelity to in his pseudo-C# translation. The "results2" and "results3" identifiers are in turn kept as properties, exposed on the Example class, and to top it off, are actually defined (not once, but twice) as nested classes of the Example class, because these are, in fact, lists of results, not a single result.
I could go on, but frankly, the noise would begin to swamp the signal. I leave the exercise of opening example.exe in Reflector up to the interested reader. (If you're even remotely interested in F#, I highly recommend doing so once or twice, just to get an idea of how much scaffolding and infrastructure F# is putting into place for you. It's also incredibly useful for when you're trying to figure out C#-calling-F# interop issues.) It's particularly interesting to walk the path of how results2 gets generated, and how wildly different that is from the traditional C# "for" loop. It turns out that everything I'm doing in the code snippet above can be done in C#, but wow, why would you want to? Particularly if you want to get exactly the same kind of fidelity to side effects (that is to say, none at all) that the F# approach gives you?
Both are excellent points, tms, and thanks for taking the time to offer feedback.