4 ms·

API's are the same for F# and C#, so it should be trivial to translate the code examples from C# into F#. Just remove the curly braces and change "var" into "le

by goto11 6y ago

API's are the same for F# and C#, so it should be trivial to translate the code examples from C# into F#. Just remove the curly braces and change "var" into "let".

rishav_sharan 6y ago
two problems here; 1. For a new comer to the language, this is still too much of a hurdle. 2. If I wanted to use F# only as a proxy for C#, then I would rather use C#. I want to write F# code in a functional first and idiomatic way. This is the stock answer I have gotten in the .Net Community and as someone who wants to use F# for web apps, its a huge turn off. There are pretty much no tutorials, no recent articles and no performant native F# libraries out there. There is no push from MS to improve the situation. and the community is like - This is fine! Expecting a new user to write c# code with "let" isn't going to fix that.
- piaste 6y ago
  > There are pretty much no tutorials, no recent articles and no performant native F# libraries out there. Giraffe [1] is the de facto standard F# web framework. It's a plugin on top of ASP.NET (for all the reasons described elsewhere - performance, security, ecosystem) that lets you write functional-style 'route >=> function' code without controllers. If you want a more batteries-included approach, Saturn [2] builds on top of Giraffe to provide, well, more backend batteries (database layer, etc.) Finally, the SAFE stack [3] are a set of project templates that combine the above with a F# frontend (via the Fable JS compiler) and some Azure deployment helpers. [1] https://giraffe.wiki/docs https://giraffe.wiki/docs [2] https://saturnframework.org https://saturnframework.org [3] https://safe-stack.github.io/ https://safe-stack.github.io/
oaiey 6y ago
F# deserves more love in their communication. Definitely. F# appeals to many, however, from a product management perspective (aka MS perspective) there is a ratio of 100 C# dev to 1 F# devs (MS showed statistics once on it). Also, F# is community owned to my understanding (up to the statement of a MS Research Employee and F# inventor Don Syme to say that the "Microsoft." prefix on ASP.NET Core are not open source community friendly) while C# is 100% design & developed by MS. Which - IMHO - makes it very delicate for Microsoft to communicate well here.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  They also have a few high profile personalities that are pretty much into the "us vs them" towards C# developers and Microsoft, which turns off many enterprise developers to even bother with F#.
mdpm 6y ago
This would remove the benefit of functional idioms, and mitigate any advantages the differing approaches have. F# and C# and not just syntactically different.
- goto11 6y ago
  True, but the code examples in the BCL documentation is to show how to use the API, not to teach the languages. See something like F# for Fun and Profit https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ to learn to write idiomatic F#. More F# documentation and support from MS would be great, but IMHO F# examples in the BCL documentation would not be the best use of resources.

by goto11 6y ago

API's are the same for F# and C#, so it should be trivial to translate the code examples from C# into F#. Just remove the curly braces and change "var" into "let".

rishav_sharan 6y ago

two problems here; 1. For a new comer to the language, this is still too much of a hurdle. 2. If I wanted to use F# only as a proxy for C#, then I would rather use C#. I want to write F# code in a functional first and idiomatic way. This is the stock answer I have gotten in the .Net Community and as someone who wants to use F# for web apps, its a huge turn off. There are pretty much no tutorials, no recent articles and no performant native F# libraries out there. There is no push from MS to improve the situation. and the community is like - This is fine! Expecting a new user to write c# code with "let" isn't going to fix that.

piaste 6y ago
> There are pretty much no tutorials, no recent articles and no performant native F# libraries out there. Giraffe [1] is the de facto standard F# web framework. It's a plugin on top of ASP.NET (for all the reasons described elsewhere - performance, security, ecosystem) that lets you write functional-style 'route >=> function' code without controllers. If you want a more batteries-included approach, Saturn [2] builds on top of Giraffe to provide, well, more backend batteries (database layer, etc.) Finally, the SAFE stack [3] are a set of project templates that combine the above with a F# frontend (via the Fable JS compiler) and some Azure deployment helpers. [1] https://giraffe.wiki/docs https://giraffe.wiki/docs [2] https://saturnframework.org https://saturnframework.org [3] https://safe-stack.github.io/ https://safe-stack.github.io/

oaiey 6y ago

F# deserves more love in their communication. Definitely. F# appeals to many, however, from a product management perspective (aka MS perspective) there is a ratio of 100 C# dev to 1 F# devs (MS showed statistics once on it). Also, F# is community owned to my understanding (up to the statement of a MS Research Employee and F# inventor Don Syme to say that the "Microsoft." prefix on ASP.NET Core are not open source community friendly) while C# is 100% design & developed by MS. Which - IMHO - makes it very delicate for Microsoft to communicate well here.

pjmlp 6y ago
They also have a few high profile personalities that are pretty much into the "us vs them" towards C# developers and Microsoft, which turns off many enterprise developers to even bother with F#.

mdpm 6y ago

This would remove the benefit of functional idioms, and mitigate any advantages the differing approaches have. F# and C# and not just syntactically different.

goto11 6y ago
True, but the code examples in the BCL documentation is to show how to use the API, not to teach the languages. See something like F# for Fun and Profit https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/ to learn to write idiomatic F#. More F# documentation and support from MS would be great, but IMHO F# examples in the BCL documentation would not be the best use of resources.