ionide-vscode-fsharp VS cats-effect

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 :)

Those benchmarks are using a snapshot version of cats-effect. I don't know where that one comes from, but previously they were using a snapshot from https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect/pull/3332 which had some issues (3.5-6581dc4, 70% performance degradation), which have since been resolved (see that PR for more info and comparative benchmarks).

Recently, CE3 has had similar issues reported across multiple repositories, almost an epidemic of reports!

The one advantage Rust has over Scala is that it detects data races at compile time, and that's a big time saver if you use low level thread synchronization. However, if you write pure FP code with ZIO or Cats Effect that's basically a non-issue anyway.

See also cats-effect and fs2. cats-effect gives you your IO Monad (and IOApp to run it with on supported platforms). fs2 is the ecosystem’s streaming library, which is much more pervasive in functional Scala than in Haskell. For example, http4s and Doobie are both based on fs2.

On the contrary, switching to the functional mindset, with something like Typelevel Scala3 and respective cats and cats-effect fs2 frameworks, helps to rethink a lot of designs and development approaches.

I think "better Haskell on JVM" (in contrast to "worse Haskell") is a good identity for Scala to have. (Please note that this is an intentional hyperbole.)

Of course, there are areas where Haskell is stronger than Scala (hint: modularity, crucial for good Software Engineering, is not one of them). And Scala has its own way of doing things, so just imitating Haskell won't work well.

Examples of this "better Haskell" are https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/ and https://zio.dev/ .

All together, Scala may be a better choice for you if you want to do Pure Functional Programming. And is definitely less risky (runs on JVM, Java libraries interop, IntelliJ, easy debugging, etc...).

None of the other languages you mentioned are viable in this sense (if also you want a powerful type system, which rules out Clojure).

I agree that Rust's identity is pretty clear: a modern language for use cases where only C or C++ could have been used before.

I would use Scala. I like FP and Scala comes with some awesome libraries for concurrent/async programming like Cats Effect or ZIO. Good choice for creating modern style micro-services to be run in the cloud (or even macro-services, Scala has a powerful module system, so it's made to handle large codebases).

https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/

https://zio.dev/

The language, the community and customs are great. You don't have to worry about nulls, things are immutable by default, domain modelling with ADTs and patter matching is pure joy.

The tooling available is from good to great and Scala is big enough that there are good libraries for typical if not vast majority of stuff and Java libs as a reliable fallback.

What took my interest is this (for both JVM and future multithreaded Scala native): https://github.com/typelevel/cats-effect/discussions/3070 Having the same threads poll available IO events and execute callbacks should improve performance greatly

The author is the creator of Monix and implemented the first version of cats-effect. He knows what he is doing.

You want Kernmantle, which quite honestly shouldn't be hard to implement around Cats and cats-effect. In particular, although Kernmantle doesn't require the use of the Arrow typeclass, there happen to be Arrow (actually ArrowChoice) instances for both Function1 from the standard library and Kleisli from Cats itself, given a Monad instance for the Kleilsi's F[_] type parameter. In other words, we should be able to port Kernmantle from Haskell to Scala (with the Typelevel ecosystem) and instantly be able to use pretty much anything else from the Typelevel ecosystem, or wrapped with it, in our workflow graphs. Pure functions, monadic functions, applicative functions, GADTs with hand-written interpreters, any of it. I think this would be eminently worth doing.