4 ms·
> Requirements for refactoring tooling, for instance, are far simpler. If that's the case, it's sad that Visual Studio's refactorings for F# are so meager.
by GiorgioG 6y ago
> Requirements for refactoring tooling, for instance, are far simpler.
If that's the case, it's sad that Visual Studio's refactorings for F# are so meager.
- algorithmsRcool 6y agoThis is another tragedy of the bifurcation of the F# and greater .NET community. Most of the investment in refactoring has been for Roslyn analyzers, which are C#/VB specific. F# has a completely difference compiler framework. I don't know if the F# compiler service or Roslyn came about first, but they are not compatible with each other.
- JanneVee 6y agoYet I don't miss any refactoring tools in VS for F#. It is a simpler language and has some nice design affordances that makes refactoring superfluous in some cases. I have a small story around it. A couple of years back I had the nasty habit of enumerating sequences multiple times with LINQ. Resharper constantly complained about it. Programmed some F# for projecteuler and advent of code. My nasty habit of multiple enumeration went away even in C#, because F# design affordances made me rethink enumeration and sequences. So since then I haven't triggered multiple enumration in Resharper with my own code. It is always somebody elses.