Fable isn't just for view logic. Fable is also really handy for writing puzzle solvers/generators for the browser. I used it in https://vowels.io while using regular preact/js for the views. I found that keeping the fable stuff isolated to lib code gave me less friction.
Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
51–60 of 131 posts
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my experience it’s still not easy to find an F# Job. It’s a niche, but it exists and is growing. If you want one and are willing to take a few compromises you’ll find one.
I see a decent number of openings in the City of London quite regularly for finance and insurance positions. Also OCaml and sometimes Haskell. Even Rust has started popping up recently. I find this a bit intriguing because the library support for linear algebra, probability and statistics is pretty slim both in .NET and OCaml. The latter has OWL, which is very cool, but it's mostly a 1-person project. Do they develop…
F# is your strongly typed contender to Python.
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a decent number of openings in the City of London quite regularly for finance and insurance positions. Also OCaml and sometimes Haskell. Even Rust has started popping up recently. I find this a bit intriguing because the library support for linear algebra, probability and statistics is pretty slim both in .NET and OCaml. The latter has OWL, which is very cool, but it's mostly a 1-person project. Do they develop…
F# is your strongly typed contender to Python.
Sure, it's a lovely language. But I find the lack of some basic linear algebra, probability and statistics libraries frustrating. As pjmlp said in a parent thread, those are closed source and usually bought.
I guess a lot of the .NET ecosystem is like that. It's a shame, because MS has some open-source jewels like Z3 or Infer.NET.
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#54I wonder how elm and clojurescript are doing?
we use CLJS in production
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#55I've had fantastic experiences with this platform as well, front- and back-end code compiled together using F#'s robust type system.
Elmish framework provided a nice MVU pattern for the U/I.
And the real icing on the cake was this Thoth.Elmish package which creates statically-typed proxy for your front-end to access your back-end API, more or less transparently. I was always certain that I would some day do something unorthodox causing its automated serialization/deserialization to fail in some difficult-to-troubleshoot way but no, that never happened and it all just worked transparently.
This was hands down the best automated-correctness-checking experience that I've ever had in any framework.
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#56We're an F#-first company and I'd like to share our experience here. All our new code is in F#, we started off from a C# codebase, so that made the transition somewhat manageable, as new F# code can be directly called from C#, and vice versa (still took over 2 years). All new frontend apps are also being written in F# (using Fable), as of 6 months back, migrating away from TypeScript, this forces everyone into a "des…
Please can you sure more about this?
> We also make ample use of quotations to do some cool tricks (like predict the future states some type can take, based on current state + available transitions).
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#57How does Fable 3 stack up against ReScript or Scala.js? Is the only difference the ecosystem around the toolchains?
I haven't tried Fable 3 yet, but I can speak to Fable 2 (F#) vs ReScript/ReasonML (OCaml). F# was heavily inspired by OCaml, it was originally intended as "What would OCaml look like running on .NET?" so the languages themselves share a lot of similarities. ReasonML pros: - ReasonML compilation times were much faster than Fable 2, but Fable compile times weren't bad. OCaml is ridiculously fast. - OCaml has an interes…
I think you are missing the biggest advantage of F#: computation expressions.
Computation expressions are like do-notation and list comprehensions in one feature. Now that I have tried them, I don't want to go back to a language without!
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#58I have been intrigued by the SAFE stack lately https://safe-stack.github.io/ . Does anyone have direct experience with it?
I am not using SAFE, but something similar:
* Suave
* AWS
* Fable
* React
SAFR? It's great, but missing a snazzy acronym.
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't tried Fable 3 yet, but I can speak to Fable 2 (F#) vs ReScript/ReasonML (OCaml). F# was heavily inspired by OCaml, it was originally intended as "What would OCaml look like running on .NET?" so the languages themselves share a lot of similarities. ReasonML pros: - ReasonML compilation times were much faster than Fable 2, but Fable compile times weren't bad. OCaml is ridiculously fast. - OCaml has an interes…
I think you are missing the biggest advantage of F#: computation expressions. Computation expressions are like do-notation and list comprehensions in one feature. Now that I have tried them, I don't want to go back to a language without!
Computation expressions seem like one of F#'s unique features. I assume there are corollaries in other languages - but damn do they make code readable.
Re: Fable 3: F# to JavaScript compiler
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
F# is your strongly typed contender to Python.
Sure, it's a lovely language. But I find the lack of some basic linear algebra, probability and statistics libraries frustrating. As pjmlp said in a parent thread, those are closed source and usually bought. I guess a lot of the .NET ecosystem is like that. It's a shame, because MS has some open-source jewels like Z3 or Infer.NET.
Hopefully F# gets big enough that people will write those libraries - I think people deserve a better Python.