Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 16 posts

Re: Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

#3

Post by sixbrx »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #2

On Linux making a standalone binary is surprisingly easy: $ fsharpc file.fs # can run the generated file.exe via mono at this point $ mkbundle --static file.exe -o file Now ./file is a statically compiled binary. Easy deployment.

Wow, I had no idea things have progressed this far in the F# world on Linux. I might have to try it on my next numerical project. Thanks for posting.

Re: Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

#4

Post by throwaway344 »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #2

On Linux making a standalone binary is surprisingly easy: $ fsharpc file.fs # can run the generated file.exe via mono at this point $ mkbundle --static file.exe -o file Now ./file is a statically compiled binary. Easy deployment.

That is awesome. I've been working pretty extensively with F# (several small projects, and a current bigger one), and I really love the language. Has all the functional constructs that I like plus mutable variables when I need them. And pretty boilerplate-less.

Re: Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

#5

Post by tbirdz »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #2

On Linux making a standalone binary is surprisingly easy: $ fsharpc file.fs # can run the generated file.exe via mono at this point $ mkbundle --static file.exe -o file Now ./file is a statically compiled binary. Easy deployment.

I was interested in the language, but was put off by the .NET connection for using on linux. Is F# running on mono on linux comparable, performance-wise, with the windows stack?

Re: Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

#7

Post by MichaelGG »

tbirdz wrote: post #5
CraigJPerry wrote: post #2

On Linux making a standalone binary is surprisingly easy: $ fsharpc file.fs # can run the generated file.exe via mono at this point $ mkbundle --static file.exe -o file Now ./file is a statically compiled binary. Easy deployment.

I was interested in the language, but was put off by the .NET connection for using on linux. Is F# running on mono on linux comparable, performance-wise, with the windows stack?

Mono is generally slower, with a few exceptions. It's not "slow" though - maybe half the performance of the CLR? I'm not sure where it stands after v3, which includes a proper GC. Mono also has an LLVM option which increases startup times, but provides a ~30% bonus at runtime.

Re: Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

#8

Post by dragonwriter »

gaze wrote: post #6

Grrr. Why won't Microsoft open the CLR? It's so fast and has such amazing codegen! I don't want performance to degrade moving from Windows to some platform that requires I run mono!

> Why won't Microsoft open the CLR? It's so fast and has such amazing codegen!

Watch how you are about to answer your own question.

> I don't want performance to degrade moving from Windows to some platform that requires I run mono!

Yes, but Microsoft, who sells Windows licenses, does want performance to degrade when you move from Windows to some other platform.

Re: Announcing the F# 3.1 Compiler/Library Code Drop

#10

Post by snotrockets »

tbirdz wrote: post #5
CraigJPerry wrote: post #2

On Linux making a standalone binary is surprisingly easy: $ fsharpc file.fs # can run the generated file.exe via mono at this point $ mkbundle --static file.exe -o file Now ./file is a statically compiled binary. Easy deployment.

I was interested in the language, but was put off by the .NET connection for using on linux. Is F# running on mono on linux comparable, performance-wise, with the windows stack?

Whenever splitting Microsoft is mentioned, I pray for them to spin off the devtools.

F# is better Scala than Scala, C# better Java than Java. Both suffer from a meh runtime (compared to other offers) on non-Windows platforms.

Post reply on HN