I was also hoping that the FSharp team would seriously consider implementing the dynamic keyword so that interop with dynamic languages and the DLR would not be unnecessarily awkward.

You may be interested in the last question here:

[link:www.infoq.com]

By on 3/27/2009 7:34 PM ()

That's great news! I'm looking forward to the implementation.

regards,

Danny

By on 3/30/2009 3:08 AM ()

Bit of an aside: It's interesting to see how far the Mono guy's are a head of the C# guys on this point. The mono C# compiler is written in C# and which has allowed them to implement a C# top level like F# interactive. We had a visit from JB Evain [1] from mono team at our alt.net.paris meeting [2]. He gave us some nice demos of this. Definitely looks like implementing C# in C# was a better design choice than implementing it in C++.

It will interesting to see if when the C# compiler is ported to C# if it runs on mono as the F# compiler does.

Cheers,

Rob

[1] [link:evain.net]

[2] [link:groups.google.com]

By on 11/5/2008 11:19 PM ()

I don't think it was a bad design decision at the time. I'd definitely have preferred C++ to C# 1.0. There's also the bootstrapping issue, of course.

Btw, the Mono guys also seem to be at least partially ahead of Microsoft's CLR team in terms of their performance work. With Mono.SIMD they will finally allow developers to take advantage of modern CPUs' enhanced instructions sets. According to what the CLR guys said in the Q&A of their PDC session, they still don't have any such plans -- eight years years after the introduction of SSE2 and six month after Intel officially announced their 256-bit vector instruction set AVX.

Best regards,
Stephan

By on 11/6/2008 12:20 AM ()

I hate to break it to you... But at least until Mono 2.0 including Mono is way BEHIND Microsoft on the performance side.

Just about everything in Mono is about two steps back when compared to the state of the art in Microsoft's CLR:
* Heaps are limited to 3GB, Yes, even in 64bit
* No real pre-compiled a-la NGen code (this is changing in 2.2)
* Less code-sharing with Generic (code that doesn't have to be duplicated is duplicated)
* Less code gets inlines somehow, inliner is more "fuzzy" generally speaking
* Locking / Threading support is much slower
* GC is way more aggressive, and "leaky" to some extent

The only thing they have actually done better is the Mono.SIMD which is a part of Mono 2.2 which isn't really out yet.

By on 11/19/2008 2:31 PM ()

Yep, the mono guy's are behind in many ways, I never said they weren't. It's hardly surprising if you look at the size of the teams, mono has 36 devs, I don't know how many MS, but it's more than 36 ...

All I was saying is there are a few areas they are ahead in, the C# toplevel is one, I didn't know about "Mono.SIMD" but it looks interesting. I also think that mono.cecil is better than anything MS offer on the IL reading front.

Cheers,

Rob

By on 11/20/2008 1:04 AM ()

All I was saying is there are a few areas they are ahead in, the C# toplevel is one, I didn't know about "Mono.SIMD" but it looks interesting. I also think that mono.cecil is better than anything MS offer on the IL reading front.

This is gettnig very off topic, but have you looked at Phoenix?

[link:research.microsoft.com]

I'm just asking because I plan to do some serious IL reading in the near future, and it seems Phoenix and Cecil are the two main contenders.

Kurt

By on 11/24/2008 2:17 AM ()

Very interesting!

The scope of Phoenix seems very broad:

'Phoenix

is the code name for the software optimization and analysis framework that is the

basis for all future Microsoft compiler technologies.'

Would this include FSharp?

By on 11/24/2008 12:13 PM ()

Yeah, thinking back C# 1.0 was a bit of a drag but maybe it would have been better if the compiler devs had been forced to use it :) I see it as statement of confidence in your compiler/runtime, yeah your left with a bootstrapping problem, but it is solvable.

Cheers,

Rob

By on 11/6/2008 12:37 AM ()

Now if only Anders would consider writing the C# compiler in F#!

By on 11/6/2008 1:37 AM ()

I think this would be a good idea, but doubt they will do it. However someone else is thinking about this, don't know how far they have got:

[link:www.codegrunt.co.uk]

By on 11/6/2008 1:43 AM ()
IntelliFactory Offices Copyright (c) 2011-2012 IntelliFactory. All rights reserved.
Home | Products | Consulting | Trainings | Blogs | Jobs | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy
Built with WebSharper