3 ms·
Because they are pretty annoying to implement and most are quite fragile
by Akronymus 3y ago
Because they are pretty annoying to implement and most are quite fragile
- eddythompson80 3y agoThey are only as fragile as your type source.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoMaybe not 'fragile' as in buggy, not buggy, but I found them to be 'quirky'. Sometimes stop working unless I close /re-open VScode. Stuff like that. And other downfall. Do they still not work with DOTNET Core??
- chusk3 3y agoThey've worked for several years now on dotnet, but the type provider author has to do some work to allow their type provider to compile and target that runtime.
- owlstuffing 3y agoYep, implementing one (a solid one) is hardcore. But think about it. Building, say, an XML or SQL type provider is a big deal. Doing it right requires special talent, because you are essentially building a transpiler to seamlessly interface with F#. But this is also it’s greatest strength. Having direct, type-safe access to structured data is truly awesome. What else compares? Certainly not conventional code gen.
- Akronymus 3y agoOh, don't get me wrong: Type providers are absolutely fantastic. Just, they are such a complex beast, most implementations I used so far are pretty fragile, at best. But tbh, even a fragile one is surprisingly useful