Fable: F# |> BABEL VS csharplang

This conversation could be referring to https://fable.io/

Other than that, the question is indeed strange and I agree with your statements.

NOTE: For larger codebases with more history it is likely that the Program.fs file will have a lot of orchestration and logic as well. given that it is often where everything clashes and starts, for example the Fable Entrypoint is in Entry.fs and it contains a lot of code. The best you can do always is to start at the bottom of the file and work your way up. Remember: Everything at the bottom uses what has already been defined at the top so there are no circular dependencies or random functions/types at the bottom that can trip you off, everything comes from the top!

I am a big fan of going with web components + plain (build-less) javascript whenever possible, so it is not surprising that I often favor things like the Fable Compiler, where I can target my F# code directly to javascript and be as close to the native JS experience as possible, both for interop concerns and for ecosystem integration.

Fable compiler - https://fable.io/

The F# community is very friendly (these sub-communities as well), and they have plenty of good issues/opportunities to contribute OSS work to across any skill level.

Phosphor isn't hiring right now, but we expect to begin a search for FE/interface engineers over the next few month. Email [email protected] for anyone interested.

Naturally I’d recommend using a better language such as ReScript or Elm or PureScript or F#‘s Fable + Elmish, but “React” is the king right now and people perceive TypeScript as “less risky” for jobs/hiring, so here we are.

Stuff like this: https://github.com/fable-compiler/Fable/issues/1822

It just seems like an incredibly ambitious project that appears to have very little equal but is mainly worked on by a handful of people but no corporate backing. I get the feeling that if you want to use it, you'll either be the only one doing what you're doing or among just a few people. I already use F# and feel this way about the core language itself.

F# is also part of the OCaml family, has a great to-JS transpiler (https://fable.io/) and F# code can also be used in .NET projects.

I have heard many good things about https://fable.io/ Fable converts F# code to JavaScript. There are currently 407 packages available for interacting with existing JavaScript packages and frameworks.

Certain parts of Microsoft Learn are permissive, for example the .NET BCL documentation is Creative Commons Attribution: https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-api-docs as is ASP.NET Core: https://github.com/dotnet/AspNetCore.Docs (a good hint if documentation is permissively licensed and on GitHub is if there's an edit button at the top.)

The C# language specification is unfortunately a bit fuzzier: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/discussions/4855

The updated unified C# language specification is CC, but it's still catching up to modern C#: https://github.com/dotnet/csharpstandard

No OP, but for example you still see the C# folks still struggling to add discriminated unions to the language because of complex interactions due to its too many features[1]. Virtual threads are easier to use than async/await is another example.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/113

For example, C# had a research fork called Spec# that had compile-time support for contracts, with keywords such as requires (for arguments) and ensures (for return values), all the way back in 2004. While still being discussed, it doesn't seem to be shipping any time soon.

Hi there. I'm the language designer who created the 'Collection Expression' design/specification: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/5354

You can see the entire history of the proposal there. To answer you specific question, we went with `..` because that's what the language already uses for the complimentary 'pattern matching deconstruction' form for collection patterns.

In other words, you can already say this today:

    if (x is [var start, .. var middle, .. var end]) { ... }

You must specify concrete type.

There was a plan to have "natural type" so "var list = [1,2,3]" would be of type "List" but it was postponed to C# 13 (https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/5354#issuecommen...)

While C# currently lacks direct support for this kind of functionality, there's a glimmer of hope with an active proposal under discussion that aims to bring this feature to the language. This potential addition promises a future where C# can natively offer similar robust type narrowing.

Given few people anticipated ValueTuple and C# adding a more direct tuple syntax, I feel like it is only a matter of time before C# adds discriminated unions.

(There are multiple proposals tracking the idea. This seems the most comprehensive and "central": https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/7016)

I always liked list abbreviations in python, but I absolutely love Linq. I believe there is a feature proposal for C# 12, which makes collection initialization better imo.