haskell-mode VS Fable: F# |> BABEL

You can use GHCI's debugger through Emacs's haskell-debug-mode (part of the haskell-mode package), and probably through other editor/IDEs as well, a programming editor like Emacs or Vim simply needs to be able to run a GHCI session and send commands to it.

No, I was only using haskell-mode. So I guess this is LSP's fault, then. Not Emacs's fault and not haskell-mode's fault.

If I made it sound like there's something like IntelliSense today, apologies! We've got <https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/blob/master/haskell-...>, but it's type-a-command-and-do-a-search: it's not linked in with completion directly in the setups I've seen.

(In practice, I'm usually starting from a slightly different place: I know I want a Frob and I've got a This and a That, so I do :hoogle This -> That -> Frob and get some options. The thought-process is working backwards from the goal more than forwards from one key object in focus. A different way of working, but I'm not convinced it's less effective.)

My point though was that it's an engineering issue, not a fundamental language limitation. ie not a reason all future languages should shun haskell features. The building blocks to do better at completion than haskell curently does are there.

check if you have any similar config to what caused this issue: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/issues/1777 for me

Package-lint has been on my list, but the maintainer, MELPA's Steve Purcell, has been hesitant about NonGNU ELPA in the past (see this discussion), so I have skipped his packages for now, and also because most of the packages he maintains have a "broken" version tag, most of the time -- the reason here is that MELPA adds these manually, and since he understandably is targetting MELPA, there is little interest from his side to fix that.

You can see the expected output in this PR description.

I use haskell-mode. It has a shortcut for loading a module into REPL, and it also runs hasktags for me. That's literally all I use.

Just as a note from my poking around, this is the "official" way to use a nix-shell with haskell-mode: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode/blob/3a019e65b504861d7ea23afbfecd14e5ef63e846/haskell-customize.el#L77

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.