SML lacks a strong ecosystem.
- Disposition Dilemma.
- Exception when using Alea null reference in fsharp.core.dll.
- Anthropologies of Medicine: A Colloquium on West European and North American Perspectives;
- problem with dorian scale?.
- F# eXchange 2016.
Dotnet core on Linux and macOS has been a good experience for me so far. Net ecosystem is definitely a killer feature. Everything you want, and it 'just works', as well as everything being seamlessly integrated with each other. This is only possible with the backing of a huge amount of funding, and there are probably millions of man hours spent on it at this point. Why is the. NET integration a feature rather than an antifeature? Don't null and subclassing tend to poke holes in F 's type system's ability to detect mistakes?
And would it not be better to compile to native code than to require the Mono VM or whatnot? PsylentKnight 9 months ago. Yep, almost all of my side stuff and an ever-increasing proportion of my work stuff is in SAFE. It's actually built on Dustin's Giraffe library, which itself is built on top of Asp. Net Core. Nelkins 9 months ago. That "famous slide" really rings true for me. Data goes in, transformation happens, data comes out.
I do like that F is very practical about OO though. I really wish Unity3D would relinquish control of my Visual Studio Solution files and have a much nicer path to including its libraries as a dependency manually so I could start using some of the other languages in the CLR ecosystem. I've managed to get it to work before by very carefully searching for the DLLs in the Unity install directory and compiling my own DLLs into a Plugins folder in my Unity project, but it's very brittle.
Expert F# | SpringerLink
It's not obvious which set of DLLs to import there are lots of different versions of each, for various rhyme platforms , and I upgrade new Unity versions frequently, so the location is a moving target. And Heaven help you if you want to depend on something that is only released as a script bundle in a Unity Package like every VR SDK out there right now.
And given how Unity's braindead YAML metafile system works, you're pretty sure to break your component references in your scenes and prefabs with even the most minor of rearchitecturings. Unity having its own build pipeline is a huge impediment. And none of it is documented well enough to get it right without hours of ping-pong with test runs. NET Core yet. But the work is ongoing and something we're fairly close to releasing. When it's done, you can simply "reference a package" in a script or interactive session, and it will resolve whatever that dependency graph is and let you use it as if you were editing source code in a project in an IDE.
I care about this a lot. All my respects for the efforts in that direction.
F# Weekly #2, 12222 – Open FSharp 2018 Videos
It's trailing behind C as always , but the plan is to support F in CoreRT, which will get you your native builds. Wanted to learn Ocaml first. But F is the sweet spot, beautiful functional syntax. Can leverage the now open. Honest question: As someone who does web development and is looking to learn a new programming language in , would you recommend F over Elixir and why? This has been previously mentioned but F gets all of the goodies that come with being a. NET language. Elixir comes from Ruby land and thus has a framework called Phoenix? The big difference is that F is a statically typed functional language, while Elixir is a dynamically typed functional language.
I personally opted for F because of the domain modelling tools and the offloading of various caveats and edge cases onto the compiler's stack rather than the meatspace stack, but Elixir has many fans for a good reason no doubt, but I'll defer to someone with more experience working with it to weigh in.
Did you mean to say Elixir comes from Ruby?
F# Books - General
Surely you mean Erlang? Multicomp 9 months ago. I think the poster got Crystal and Elixir confused. I do sometimes tbh. Elixir obviously is Erlang under the hood, but its syntax was inspired by Ruby's simplicity. I'd suggest try both. The Elixir web world gets a lot more love than the F one. F always touts the advantage of living in the. NET world, but it means most things are built with C in mind, not F.
There are F frameworks, and they are nice, but the community is quite small. But the advantage is the. NET world has a vast amount of libraries for doing most things. OTP and Elixir is a better story than F equivalents. There are no lightweight isolated processes in. NET Elixir also has macros a very sharp double edged sword which can make frameworks nice to use. F is stronger typing which is nice and often has the trait if it compiles, it works. Though the normal downsides of dynamic typing in Elixir are not so bad.
But the best thing is to try both and make up your own mind. F async and mailbox provide a decent actor model. Writing an F wrapper on c libraries is usually very easy. Computation expressions can fulfil the needs of macros in many cases in a controlled way. GordonS 9 months ago. I'm a C and Typescript guy, and recently spent a day with each of Elixir and F.
I loved them both! Elixir has a great 'getting started' site, which was really well put together, and similarly the 'F for Fun and Profit' site was great too, so I feel like I had equally good resources to introduce me to them both. I'd love to spend more time with both of them, but in general I'm more comfortable with static typing, so if I progress further with either, it'll be F. Honestly I was super psyched to get into F after finishing Dan Grossman's programming languages class, but I abandoned it pretty quickly because setup was so difficult on my Mac.
Net available. Net Core, Mono Net Core because the community seemed to have decided on that, but there is no easy way to do a cross-platform GUI in F using. I stumbled around with Visual Studio Code for a while, ran into some compatibility issues with hundreds of lines of errors messages I'm sure it would have been fantastic if I had had an F person help me get set up and started, but the setup curve was too steep to be enjoyable actually, setting up is never enjoyable.
I just want to get to the good part of coding stuff! F seems like such an amazing language every time I look at it — a modern version of OCaml, with a clean syntax, some novel ideas, and fewer legacy warts. NET runtime.
- International Migration and Rural Areas (Studies in Migration and Diaspora).
- Recent Posts!
- F# Weekly #2, – Open FSharp Videos – Sergey Tihon's Blog.
- Produkt empfehlen.
- Becoming a Marriage and Family Therapist: From Classroom to Consulting Room?
- Expert F# 4.0?
- Assessment of Addictive Behaviors, Second Edition;
Some people might consider this a benefit, not baggage, of course. But it's the same reason I'm put off by Scala. From what I understand, to even run a compiled F program you have to have Mono installed?
It does look like you can get AOT compilation with Mono , but the limitations e. After being deeply burned by the. NET or Microsoft. And yes, somehow the OCaml guys have managed to implement generics and AOT compilation to optimized machine code long before the. NET framework existed, but now this is something "truly hard" on. My problem with OCaml that while the semantics are top notch, everything else is stuck in the past.
The syntax is quirky, there's a bunch of legacy baggage does anyone use the OO stuff? Not to mention the lack of modern libraries, frameworks, package management, etc. Reason and BuckleScript are nice, though. Reason cleans up a lot of my complaints, while still not being quite as elegant as F. But there's this sense that nobody really wants to make any groundbreaking effort here; there doesn't seem to be any push to make Reason a first-class, new syntax for OCaml, so it's stuck being a web-oriented veener for new users, while old "industrial" users like Jane Street are content to continue with their thing.
OCaml's object and class systems are excellent; I prefer them to just about anything else. They rarely get used for the simple reason that algebraic types, functors, and first-class modules are better suited to modeling almost any kind of domain logic. Also, I like OCaml's extremely simple and direct syntax. I think ReasonML went in the wrong direction, cluttering it up with curly braces and ubiquitous tuple-like syntax for function arguments. OCaml actually has excellent tooling — among the best — and some but not many great libraries.
What it lacks most is great documentation Rust and Java and Microsoft toolchains are examples of excellent tooling. OCaml, not so much. That said, the tooling situation today in OCaml is much better than it was a few years ago, which is real progress. Yes and no.