If you already know LISP, why would you also want

问题:

What is the added value for learning F# when you are already familiar with LISP?

回答1:

• Static typing (with type inference)
• Algebraic data types
• Pattern matching
• Extensible pattern matching with active patterns.
• Currying (with a nice syntax)
• Monadic programming, called 'workflows', provides a nice way to do asynchronous programming.

A lot of these are relatively recent developments in the programming language world. This is something you'll see in F# that you won't in Lisp, especially Common Lisp, because the F# standard is still under development. As a result, you'll find there is a quite a bit to learn. Of course things like ADTs, pattern matching, monads and currying can be built as a library in Lisp, but it's nicer to learn how to use them in a language where they are conveniently built-in.

The biggest advantage of learning F# for real-world use is its integration with .NET.

回答2:

Comparing Lisp directly to F# isn't really fair, because at the end of the day with enough time you could write the same app in either language.

However, you should learn F# for the same reasons that a C# or Java developer should learn it - because it allows functional programming on the .NET platform. I'm not 100% familiar with Lisp, but I assume it has some of the same problems as OCaml in that there isn't stellar library support. How do you do Database access in Lisp? What about high-performance graphics?

If you want to learn more about 'Why .NET', check out this SO question.

回答3:

If you knew F# and Lisp, you'd find this a rather strange question to ask.

As others have pointed out, Lisp is dynamically typed. More importantly, the unique feature of Lisp is that it's homoiconic: Lisp code is a fundamental Lisp data type (a list). The macro system takes advantage of that by letting you write code which executes at compile-time and modifies other code.

F# has nothing like this - it's a statically typed language which borrows a lot of ideas from ML and Haskell, and runs it on .NET

What you are asking is akin to "Why do I need to learn to use a spoon if I know how to use a fork?"

回答4:

Given that LISP is dynamically typed and F# is statically typed, I find such comparisons strange.

回答5:

If I were switching from Lisp to F#, it would be solely because I had a task on my hands that hugely benefitted from some .NET-only library.

But I don't, so I'm not.

回答6:

Money. F# code is already more valuable than Lisp code and this gap will widen very rapidly as F# sees widespread adoption.

In other words, you have a much better chance of earning a stable income using F# than using Lisp.

Cheers, Jon Harrop.

回答7:

F# is a very different language compared to most Lisp dialects. So F# gives you a very different angle of programming - an angle that you won't learn from Lisp. Most Lisp dialects are best used for incremental, interactive development of symbolic software. At the same time most Lisp dialects are not Functional Programming Languages, but more like multi-paradigm languages - with different dialects placing different weight on supporting FPL features (free of side effects, immutable data structures, algebraic data types, ...). Thus most Lisp dialects either lack static typing or don't put much emphasis on it.

So, if you know some Lisp dialect, then learning F# can make a lot of sense. Just don't think that much of your Lisp knowledge applies to F#, since F# is a very different language. As much as an imperative programming used to C or Java needs to unlearn some ideas when learning Lisp, one also needs to unlearn Lisp habits (no types, side effects, macros, ...) when using F#. F# is also driven by Microsoft and taking advantage of the .net framework.

回答8:

F# has the benefit that .NET development (in general) is very widely adopted, easily available, and more mass market.

If you want to code F#, you can get Visual Studio, which many developers will already have...as opposed to getting the LISP environment up and running.

Additionally, existing .NET developers are much more likely to look at F# than LISP, if that means anything to you.

(This is coming from a .NET developer who coded, and loved, LISP, while in college).

回答9:

I'm not sure if you would? If you find F# interesting that would be a reason. If you work requires it, it would be a reason. If you think it would make you more productive or bring you added value over your current knowledge, that would be a reason.

But if you don't find F# interesting, your work doesn't require it and you don't think it would make you more productive or bring you added value, then why would you?

If the question on the other hand is what F# gives that lisp don't, then type inference, pattern matching and integration with the rest of the .NET framework should be considered.

回答10:

I know this thread is old but since I stumbled on this one I just wanted to comment on my reasons. I am learning F# simply for professional opportunities since .NET carries a lot of weight in a category of companies that dominate my field. The functional paradigm has been growing in use among more quantitatively and data oriented companies and I'd like to be one of the early comers to this trend. Currently there doesn't an exist a strong functional language that fully and safely integrates with the .NET library. I actually attempted to port some .NET from Lisp code and it's really a pain b/c the FFI only supports C primitives and .NET interoperability requires an 'interface' construct and even though I know how to do this in C it's really a huge pain. It would be really, really, good if Lisp went the extra mile in it's next standard and required a c++ class (including virtual functions w/ vtables), and a C# style interface type in it's FFI. Maybe even throw in a Java interface style type too. This would allow complete interoperability with the .NET library and make Lisp a strong contender as a large-scale language. However with that said, coming from a Lisp background made learning F# rather easy. And I like how F# has gone the extra mile to provide types that you would commonly see it quantitative type work. I believe F# was created with mathematical work in mind and that in itself has value over Lisp.

回答11:

One way to look at this (the original question) is to match up the language (and associated tools and platforms) to the immediate task. If the task requires an overwhelming percentage of .NET code, and it would require less shoe-horning in one language than another to meet the task head-on, then take the path of least resistance (F#). If you don't need .NET capabilities, and you're comfortable working with LISP and there's no arm-bending to move away from it, keep using it.

Not really much different from comparing a hammer with a wrench. Pick the tool that fits the job most effectively. Trying to pick a tool that's objectively "best" is nonsense. And in any case, in 20 years, all of the currently "hot" languages might be outdated anyway.