mpl VS Fable: F# |> BABEL

I'm one of the authors of this work -- I can explain a little.

"Provably efficient" means that the language provides worst-case performance guarantees.

For example in the "Automatic Parallelism Management" paper (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632880), we develop a compiler and run-time system that can execute extremely fine-grained parallel code without losing performance. (Concretely, imagine tiny tasks of around only 10-100 instructions each.)

The key idea is to make sure that any task which is *too tiny* is executed sequentially instead of in parallel. To make this happen, we use a scheduler that runs in the background during execution. It is the scheduler's job to decide on-the-fly which tasks should be sequentialized and which tasks should be "promoted" into actual threads that can run in parallel. Intuitively, each promotion incurs a cost, but also exposes parallelism.

In the paper, we present our scheduler and prove a worst-case performance bound. We specifically show that the total overhead of promotion will be at most a small constant factor (e.g., 1% overhead), and also that the theoretical amount of parallelism is unaffected, asymptotically.

All of this is implemented in MaPLe (https://github.com/mpllang/mpl) and you can go play with it now!

Maple is a fork of MLton: https://github.com/MPLLang/mpl

Some of us are still using SML for research and teaching, e.g. https://github.com/mpllang/mpl

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.