Replace C# class example with a record

csharp2fsharp.md

@@ -225,40 +225,21 @@ In C# you write null checks everywhere (no safety at compile time). In F#, you d
 
 ### Example 6: Basic types
 
-This immutable C# class below is much easier to write in F#:
+This immutable C# record:
 
 ```csharp
-public class Foo
-{
-    public Foo (int bar, string baz)
-    {
-        this.bar = bar;
-        this.baz = baz;
-    }
-
-    readonly int bar;
-    public int Bar
-    {
-        get { return bar; }
-    }
-
-    readonly string baz;
-    public string Baz
-    {
-        get { return baz; }
-    }
-}
+public record Foo(int Bar, string Baz);
 
 static class FooFactory
 {
     static internal Foo CreateFoo()
     {
-        return new Foo(42, "forty-two");
+        return new (42, "forty-two");
     }
 }
 ```
 
-because it's just one line:
+becomes:
 
 ```fsharp
 type Foo = { Bar: int; Baz: string }
@@ -269,9 +250,8 @@ module FooFactory =
 ```
 
 So then:
-* Classes without behaviour (like the above Foo) are called "Records", they seem similar to structs but they are still reference types and allocated on the heap. They are immutable (once you create them, you cannot change their values underneath).
 * Static classes are "modules", like the "FooFactory" type above.
-* In F#, there's no need to use the keyword "new" when creating instances of new classes or structs, except if the class being created implements IDisposable.
+* In F#, there's no need to use the keyword "new" when creating instances of new classes, records or structs, except if the class being created implements IDisposable.
 
 
 ### Example 7: Order is important, and circular dependencies are the root of all evil