41–50 of 300 posts
F# works great with Visual Studio, and especially well with intellisense.
F# was designed as industrial language from the beginning, and high quality tooling is a large part of that.
It might just be me, though, maybe other people use the language in ways that don't work that well there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get this might just boil down to preference but I absolutely hate named parameters. They’re biased towards new users of a language and quickly become painful to write once you’re familiar with the function call. Plus they don’t always improve writability outside of IDEs because you then have to memorise the parameter names and in some functions there’s several terms that could equally apply (if you’re using an IDE…
How would function composition work without currying? You'd have to name everything, wouldn't you? I'm thinking of how you could write in point-free style or even have a `(.)` function to begin with if you had the Smalltalk "message passing" style. Sure the Haskell syntax is a bit much when you're not familiar with it but, like almost any language, it's often the least-interesting part of the language and the most ta…
A lot of functional languages -- Haskell as I understand it is the biggest perpetrator -- optimize for code length and composability, trying to make things as expressive as possible, and decrying those who can't read something that has meaning densely packed into every single character as those who are "simply not familiar" with the language.
But that's what OP is saying: OO languages go for readability and not expressiveness, and wouldn't it be cool if there was an FP language that did the same thing?
When giving an example on how infix notation reads better: // This is obviously not too right ",".splitBy("1,2,3,4,5") // This should be right, because it reads out more naturally "1,2,3,4,5".splitBy(",") It's funny that in Python split works this way but join doesn't. This is because in the case of split both arguments are strings, but for join one of the arguments is a Sequence, which is a general protocol rather t…
I get this might just boil down to preference but I absolutely hate named parameters. They’re biased towards new users of a language and quickly become painful to write once you’re familiar with the function call. Plus they don’t always improve writability outside of IDEs because you then have to memorise the parameter names and in some functions there’s several terms that could equally apply (if you’re using an IDE…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any chance you have a write up about your experience with it??
I'm pretty sure this is a joke. There's no way you can run a SaaS on two lines of code... Unless it's some bizzarely simple calculator or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare that to JavaScript where you can literally just install vscode and node and you’re up and running. Not to mention that you could pop open a console in any browser and execute code. I love OCaml as a language but we have to admit that the developer experience just sucks. For something to be simple, a 10 year old kid needs to be able to figure it out. That’s how languages get adopted.
>Compare that to JavaScript where you can literally just install vscode and node and you’re up and running. Not to mention that you could pop open a console in any browser and execute code. That's only because VSCode was developed in JavaScript, and JavaScript is used in Browsers anyway. This has nothing to do with Intellisense friendliness.
When giving an example on how infix notation reads better: // This is obviously not too right ",".splitBy("1,2,3,4,5") // This should be right, because it reads out more naturally "1,2,3,4,5".splitBy(",") It's funny that in Python split works this way but join doesn't. This is because in the case of split both arguments are strings, but for join one of the arguments is a Sequence, which is a general protocol rather t…
I get this might just boil down to preference but I absolutely hate named parameters. They’re biased towards new users of a language and quickly become painful to write once you’re familiar with the function call. Plus they don’t always improve writability outside of IDEs because you then have to memorise the parameter names and in some functions there’s several terms that could equally apply (if you’re using an IDE…
It is a fair complaint, but don't you think this is offset almost entirely by a good IDE?
When giving an example on how infix notation reads better: // This is obviously not too right ",".splitBy("1,2,3,4,5") // This should be right, because it reads out more naturally "1,2,3,4,5".splitBy(",") It's funny that in Python split works this way but join doesn't. This is because in the case of split both arguments are strings, but for join one of the arguments is a Sequence, which is a general protocol rather t…
I get this might just boil down to preference but I absolutely hate named parameters. They’re biased towards new users of a language and quickly become painful to write once you’re familiar with the function call. Plus they don’t always improve writability outside of IDEs because you then have to memorise the parameter names and in some functions there’s several terms that could equally apply (if you’re using an IDE…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get this might just boil down to preference but I absolutely hate named parameters. They’re biased towards new users of a language and quickly become painful to write once you’re familiar with the function call. Plus they don’t always improve writability outside of IDEs because you then have to memorise the parameter names and in some functions there’s several terms that could equally apply (if you’re using an IDE…
>I absolutely hate named parameters. They’re biased towards new users of a language and quickly become painful to write once you’re familiar with the function call. It is a fair complaint, but don't you think this is offset almost entirely by a good IDE?