4 ms·
F# is not the same thing. It's missing some of the best features of OCaml, e.g. the module system. And no, the object stuff they put into it is not a suitable r
by wtetzner 7y ago
F# is not the same thing. It's missing some of the best features of OCaml, e.g. the module system. And no, the object stuff they put into it is not a suitable replacement.
- dfgdghdf 7y agoHappy Fable user here. I think it´s easy to find some feature of a language (such as modules) and claim that every language without it is not viable. You could make the same claim about OCaml not having some of F#s best features, such as operator overloading, inline and computation expressions. But this misses the point. If you´re writing a functional-first web application, then the F# solution and the ReasonML solutions are going to look very similar. Regarding server run-times and Microsoft lock-in, this is no longer an issue. DotNET Core is open-source and cross-platform. You can also use Fable to compile F# code for Node.
- wtetzner 7y agoI'm not claiming F# is not viable without the module system, I'm saying F# is not a drop-in replacement for OCaml. There are good reasons people might prefer OCaml. I that that's a reasonable response to this comment: > I don't understand the Reason hype when F# / Fable already offers this My only point is that there are good reasons people would prefer ReasonML/OCaml over F#. I never claimed there were no reasons other people might prefer F#.
- pritambaral 7y ago> DotNET Core is open-source and cross-platform. The only open-source debugger available for .Net Core is a poorly implemented hack by Samsung, because the vendor-provided debugger was never open-sourced. https://blog.lextudio.com/the-rough-history-of-net-core-debuggers-b9fb206dc4aa?gi=b0c48bb0002c https://blog.lextudio.com/the-rough-history-of-net-core-debu...