Being embedded in .Net seems to bring a pretty big cultural difference (so I like the dotnet tag proposal). Additionally, the lack of functors and polymorphic variants seem to detract from two major modeling efforts in OCaml.
But again, ml + dotnet is indicative enough to me.
edit: whoops, interpreted your comment as saying, “there is no dotnet tag.” I now understand that you were suggesting F# posts have both the ml the dotnet tags, which is a sound idea.
Might make more sense to have an ML catch-all tag than an ocaml-specific one.
That works for me too.
would we include F# in that tag as well?
I’d vote against that. F# is pretty different from *ml
In what way? I’ll admit only a cursory examination of F#, but I’ve nontrivial experience with both SML and ocaml, and F# seemed in the family to me.
Being embedded in .Net seems to bring a pretty big cultural difference (so I like the dotnet tag proposal). Additionally, the lack of functors and polymorphic variants seem to detract from two major modeling efforts in OCaml.
But again, ml + dotnet is indicative enough to me.
We could differentiate by including both the
mlanddotnettagssee dotnet
edit: whoops, interpreted your comment as saying, “there is no dotnet tag.” I now understand that you were suggesting F# posts have both the ml the dotnet tags, which is a sound idea.
No matter.
Keep Caml and Curry on.
added
I would appreciate a
typestag for type system related posts.i’d love a functional-programming tag too, or maybe even instead