[grumpyprole]

F# is hardly modern functional programming. It's more like a better python with types. And that's much more ergonomic than C#.

[ZenoArrow]

Python and F# are not very similar. A better comparison is OCaml. F# and OCaml are similar. They're both ML-style functional languages.

[grumpyprole]

I'd much rather code F# than Python, it's more principled, at least at the small scale. But F# is in many ways closer to modern mainstream languages than a modern pure functional language. There's nothing scary about it. You can write F# mostly like Python if you want, i.e. pervasive mutation and side effects, if that's your thing.

[raincole]

It's so weird to describe F# as "Python with Types." First of all, Python is Python with Types. And C# is much more similar to Python than F# is.

[grumpyprole]

It all depends on the lens one chooses to view them. None of them are really "functional programming" in the truly modern sense, even F#. As more and more mainstream languages get pattern matching and algebraic data types (such as Python), feature lambdas and immutable values, then these languages converge. However, you don't really get the promises of functional programming such as guaranteed correct composition and easier reasoning/analysis, for that one needs at least purity and perhaps even totality. That carries the burden of proof, which means things get harder and perhaps too hard for some (e.g. the parent poster).

[azkalam]

Sure, Python has types as part of the syntax, but Python doesn't have types like Java, C#, etc. have types. They are not pervasive and the semantics are not locked down.