language-ext VS CoreCLR

You probably noticed that .SetName() returns a Either. You may have come across Unit in libraries like MediatR or Language-Ext. It's a simple construct representing a type with only one possible value. We use it as a placeholder for operations that do not return a value but may return another state. In our example, .SetName() is a Command that does not return a value but may fail. Therefore, the monad Either carries two possible states: Right (without value) or Left (with an Error).

Language-Ext is my personal favourite, but it can be a bit overwhelming for beginners due to its extensive feature set

> but I just want something closer to Scala, but for .Net

That's what I'm working toward with my language-ext library [1]. Obviously more support for expression based programming would be welcome (and higher kinds), but you can do a lot with LINQ and a good integrated library surface.

[1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext

Definitely a fan of option types, I wonder this library has anything over the C# library language-ext which also has an Option type?

Hey, I am considering adopting the Result pattern in my codebase. Wanted to get some opinions from someone who has experience with it: should I start with language-ext or FunctionalExtensions?

> [1] https://github.com/louthy/language-ext

Cool library. I've had a few of these patterns in my Sasa library for years, but you've taken it to the Haskell extreme! Probably further than most C# developers could stomach. ;-)

You might be interested in checking out the hash array mapped trie from Sasa [1]. It cleverly exploits the CLR's reified generics to unbox the trie at various levels which ends up saving quite a bit of space and indirections, so it performs almost on par with the mutable dictionary.

I had an earlier version that used an outer struct to ensure it's never null, similar to how your collections seem to work, but switched to classes to make it more idiomatic in C#.

I recently started sketching out a Haskell-like generic "Deriving" source generator, contrasted with your domain-specific piecemeal approach, ie. [Record], [Reader], etc. Did you ever try that approach?

[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sasa/code/ci/default/tree/Sasa.Col...

[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/sasa/code/ci/57417faec5ed442224a0f...

languageext supports linq for its monads and I kinda love it. The challenge is convincing my colleagues. 😅

language-ext supports it and it's pretty dang cool.

I can only recommend c# language extensions library https://github.com/louthy/language-ext

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

Sort of, some topic are not relevant anymore, consider this - https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/tree/master/Documentation/botr

Fairly advanced stuff but the Book Of The Runtime (BOTR) it's a invaluable resource

After that you can check out the The Book of the Runtime, which is the CoreCLR version of the previous book.

Technically the restrictions already exist, just as a part of the development experience.

- .NET Hot Reload is only implemented on Windows. It requires support in the .NET runtime, which is technically possible to implement, but the team has not gotten around to implementing it for years. This doesn't have to do with the issue around MS removing the "dotnet watch" command, it's for the "Edit and Continue" feature in IDEs.[1][2]

- MS was considering deprecating Omnisharp, the open-source language server that implements C# support for VS Code, and replacing it with a closed-source version. Since the announcement, commits to omnisharp-vscode have dropped off significantly. The lack of Omnisharp would mean there would be no real open-source C# development environment for Linux anymore, since MonoDevelop was abandoned a few years ago. [3]

[1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-31366/EditContinu...

[2] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/23685

[3] https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276

The next step is to realize everything you think you know about .NET is just an abstraction. Next step is to learn about what is going on behind all that syntax sugar and facades. 1st step might be https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/tree/master/Documentation/botr then go down the rabbit hole and have fun

Book of the Runtime

As for the books, back in the days I really enjoyed reading “CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Richter which helped a lot to understand what is under the hood. Other from that, try The Book of the Runtime