> And if you want to get things done in F#, don't use .NET Core. :)
Yep - stick with the version of .NET that MS is desperately trying to deprecate - remember recently when they tried to get away with not supporting ASP.NET Core 2.0 on the full framework?
> Good thing .NET Core is merely the .NET du jour, not the only .NET.
Yep, who would want to use the cross-platform, modern implementation of .NET?
> That's less than 10% higher.
Except that F# has been around twice as long as Elixir (2005 vs 2011.)
F# is the minor league team that C# farms features from. Nothing more in microsoft’s eyes.
And if you want to get things done in F#, don't use .NET Core. :) Good thing .NET Core is merely the .NET du jour, not the only .NET.
> If anyone doubts this, compare the number of F# repos to Elixir/Scala on Github.
Challenge accepted. It turns out that GitHub's advanced search page can answer questions like this directly:
Projects written in F#: 4,246 (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3AF%23&t...)
Projects written in Elixir: 4,667 (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3AElixir...)
That's less than 10% higher. Plus, I'd guess there is a bias against closed-source projects in that result, owing to the nature of .NET.
Scala is indeed a lot higher at 38,424 projects, though I wonder how many of the complaints about F# from C# users apply apply equally to Scala. (e.g. Poor GUI builder support, no native compiler, etc.)
F#'s language representation on GitHub is also nearly equal to that of OCaml, a much older language.
I'd say that's a pretty good showing for a new-ish language. Not everything's going to pop to the top like Swift, which IMHO is a "people in Hell want ice water" reaction to Objectionable C.