ionide-vscode-fsharp VS ocaml

I'd love to see something similar to Microsoft's Ionide project or for JetBrains to invest in IDE support.

> Pretty good, https://ionide.io

It pains me to admit it because I really like F# but, with due respect to the developers, Ionide and its related projects are the most unstable toolchain I've ever used.

Spend half a day reloading the editor because the extension keeps hanging on non-trivial MSBuild only to discover that the formatter has truncated in half one of the files you worked on due to a soundness bug. (OCaml's editor support, in contrast, is quite stable.)

Rider is the best editing experience I've had with F#, by far.

I know it's a recurring topic but it's reaching a high level of pain *again* (see NET SDK 6.0.400 and 7.0.100 previews don't currently work with Ionide).

I don't disagree but it owes a lot of that to OCaml. That said, since we're talking about C#, F# and VS Code I'm gonna talk about a pet peeve I have. If you open a C# project in VS Code when the "Ionide" (basically the F# plugin for Code) is installed then Ionide thinks it's a F# project and will open some F# stuff after a few seconds (or prompt you to setup some F# stuff in its gitignore). The root cause has been identified (plugin activates when it sees a ".sln" file), a PR have been opened and rejected with no mention as to why (https://github.com/ionide/ionide-vscode-fsharp/pull/1401) and the developers behind it are frustratingly non-communicative about it, closing issues about it (https://github.com/ionide/ionide-vscode-fsharp/issues/1701). Usual rules about OSS maintainers apply, they don't technically owe us users anything ... but man it feels like we're being trolled by now :D

F# doesn't have a hard dependency on vscode. Resources from MS will obviously encourage using MS tooling, but ionide [1] is really good. The lsp+neovim workflow is not as good but getting better.

[1] https://ionide.io/

Important thread about this: https://github.com/ionide/ionide-vscode-fsharp/issues/1693

Perf Avore was developed on VSCode using the ionide plugin and dotnet cli.

I was on .Net 5 but same issue on 6. I tried the fix here- setting FSharp.dotnetRoot explicitly in settings.json and so far it seems better.

Make sure to keep an eye on this MR for that very capability :)

> OCaml’s configure script is also “normal”

If that’s this OCaml, it has a configure.ac file in the root directory, which looks suspicious for an Autotools-free package: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml

You probably already know, but with OCaml 5 the only way to get flamegraphs working is to either:

* use framepointers [1]

* use LBR (but LBR has a limited depth, and may not work on on all CPUs, I'm assuming due to bugs in perf)

* implement some deep changes in how perf works to handle the 2 stacks in OCaml (I don't even know if this would be possible), or write/adapt some eBPF code to do it

OCaml 5 has a separate stack for OCaml code and C code, and although GDB can link them based on DWARF info, perf DWARF call-graphs cannot (https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/issues/12563#issuecomment-193...)

If you need more evidence to keep it enabled in future releases, you can use OCaml 5 as an example (unfortunately there aren't many OCaml applications, so that may not carry too much weight on its own).

[1]: I haven't actually realised that Fedora39 has already enabled FP by default, nice! (I still do most of my day-to-day profiling on an ~CentOS 7 system with 'perf --call-graph dwarf', I was aware that there was a discussion to enable FP by default, but haven't noticed it has actually been done already)

11. OCaml - $91,026

> It partially helps since it forces you to have types where they matters most: exported functions

But the problém the OP has is not knowing the types when reading the source (in the .ml file).

> How would it feels like to use list if only https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/stdlib/list.ml was available,

If the signature where in the source file (which you can do in OCaml too), there would be no problem - which is what all the other (for some definition of "other") languages except C and C++ (even Fortran) do.

No, really, I can't see a single advantage of separate .mli files at all. The real problém is that the documentation is often worse too, as the .mli is autogenerated and documented afterwards - and now changes made later in the sources need to be documented in the mli too, so anything that doesn't change the type often gets lost. The same happens in C and C++ with header files.

If you have been in the Ruby community for the past couple of years, it's possible that you're not a super fan of types or that this concept never passed through your mind, and that's totally cool. I myself love the dynamic and meta-programming nature of Ruby, and honestly, by the time of this article's writing, we aren't on the level of OCaml for type checking and inference, but still, there are a couple of nice things that types with sorbet bring to the table:

Looks like there have been proposals to eliminate use of 3 operand lea in OCaml code (not accepted sadly):

https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/8531

An amazing example is Ocaml lang logo / mascot. It might be useful to talk with them to know what was the process behind this work. The About page camel head on Perl dot org header is also a pretty good example of simplification, but it's not a logo, just a friendly illustration, as the O'Reilly camel is. Another notable logo for this animal is the well known tobacco industry company, but don't get me started on that (“good” logo, though, if we look at the effectiveness of their marketing).

Haskell and Agda are probably the most obvious examples. Ocaml too, but it is much older, so its type system is not as categorical. There is also Idris, which is not as well-known but is very cool.

That does sound problematic, but without the code it is hard to tell what is the issue. Typically, compiling a 6kLoc file like https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/typing/typecore.ml takes 0.8 s on my machine.