F# vs C# 3 — Conclusions
What can I say. Anyone claiming that F# is good mostly for finance and data processing and C# for everything else, has probably never written a single line of practical F# code. In previous two parts of the article, I tried to demonstrate that with F# you can achieve the same goals as with C#, but with less verbose, repetitive, structural code. How it started. At some point, developers realized that global state with unrestricted data access causes many side effects, producing insecure, error-prone, and hard-to-maintain code as software grows larger. That is when the idea emerged to bring data and the code operating on it together into a single unit, restricting direct access to the unit’s internal state and making software more secure and predictable. This is how data encapsulation was born. Alongside encapsulation, abstraction was introduced — the process of hiding how behavior works. Encapsulation ( hiding data ) and abstraction ( hiding behavior ) remain two foundational pillars of Object-Oriented Programming. And that is how OOP has worked ever since — developers bring data and behavior together ( classes ) and define abstractions for them ( interfaces ). For example, for C# developers — including myself — this has become a daily routine. And we rarely question it, because OOP languages like C# leave us little choice but to structure code this way. But if you ask yourself whether this repetitive routine is always necessary, the answer is — no. You don’t need OOP concepts to build stateless, streamlined request–response, data-processing pipelines, because in such systems there is no long-lived state to hide and protect. You have a request, and almost immediately you have a response. After that, everything is gone. That is what I tried to demonstrate in the first two parts of this article by applying FP concepts. And even if you have a classical desktop application, you don’t always need to approach it in an OOP way. Functional programming handles side effects no