> which could have very well been the Python of today if they had paid any attention to it.
Wow, really?
I'm a big fan of Clojure and F#, but IDK, I think there is a bias against functional languages since they, IMO, are harder to start doing stuff.
You can write F# just as you would with Python. This would be just using OOP or just a collection of functions operating on simple struct- or dictionary-like types, using for loops, using list comprehensions, using if-else, etc. It will look very similar and be just as easy or easier to understand.
F# is strongly typed as I understand it. Python succeeded because it wasn't. A languages type system design mutates slower than the domain specific needs of what is popular. That slowness translates to difficulty in grabbing emerging domains. And the existing users are opposed to untyped structures as hacks causing friction. For example, most deep learning libraries even in typed languages are only semi-typed as matrix sizes aren't compared in the type system but in run time.
Wow, really? I'm a big fan of Clojure and F#, but IDK, I think there is a bias against functional languages since they, IMO, are harder to start doing stuff.