4 ms·
> This is why I think we need a high-level, no-BS version of Rust. F# is probably what you're looking for if you want functional-lite programming with a strong
by AndrewGaspar 4y ago
> This is why I think we need a high-level, no-BS version of Rust.
F# is probably what you're looking for if you want functional-lite programming with a strong type system, but don't want to deal with the pains caused by static resource management.
- olalonde 4y agoIt might sound superficial but the simple fact that there is seemingly a hard dependency[0] on Visual Studio (Code) is a major turnoff for me. I am quite attached to my Vim/command line workflow. [0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/get-started/install-fsharp https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/get-started/i...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Paradigma11 4y agoThere is no hard dependency on VS Code: https://github.com/ionide/Ionide-vim https://github.com/ionide/Ionide-vim https://github.com/fsharp/emacs-fsharp-mode https://github.com/fsharp/emacs-fsharp-mode https://www.jetbrains.com/help/rider/F_Sharp.html https://www.jetbrains.com/help/rider/F_Sharp.html ...
- nickduggets 4y agoThat link includes documentation for building and running F# projects using only the .net core framework. Seems like the main set of headings is misleading, making it sound like you must install VS or (shudder) VSCode to get F# installed.
- chalst 4y agoF# has some nice things in it: I especially like how it handles multiple return values. But compared to the language it is most clearly decended from, OCaml, it ties you to .NET Core and it lacks an ML-like module system and macros. If you want to use .NET, F# is a fine choice. But otherwise, and especially in the context of an alternative to Rust, I recommend OCaml.