Roslyn VS F#

At runtime, the Case C# expressions are embedded into a function and dynamically compiled into an assembly using the Roslyn C# compiler. Then the function that contains the expression is called (e.g. CaseAvailableFunction.Availablle()). At runtime, the function provides various methods to access stored case values as well as the current input data.

I like to use the roslyn coding practices for C# projects (https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/main/docs/wiki/Contributing-Code.md)

Looks like it uses the Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.LanguageServer package as the lsp. The code for that is here https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/tree/main/src/Features/LanguageServer/Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.LanguageServer so presumable there's some way to get it to talk to neovim.

https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/main/docs/features/int...

Without interceptors, source generators can only add new code, but cannot modify any existing code. Interceptors enable method call substitutions.

Here is a link to the dotnet/roslyn .editorconfig for reference, scroll down to # CSharp code style settings:

It's no surprise that IDEs can do the same thing, and they may even share the same codebase for doing so. For instance, C#'s Roslyn compiler states:

Der Compiler und das Framework sind Open source zB. https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn

Compilador de C#: Licencia MIT.

F# F*

This year I've been attempting Advent of Code in my favourite programming language, F#. This is a beginner(ish) centered post about making incremental changes from the smallest possible solution to something more robust.

I have many less followers on Mastodon than in the Birdsite (40 vs 341), yet my activity has generated many more interactions than there. Not only that, among the users who decided to interact with me I counted: a co-discoverer of the Laniakea supercluster, one of the lead developers behind F#, the author of many important books on Java & JVM, plus many others. I'm literally a nobody, but this time there was no algorithm relying on relevance and engament metrics to decide what to present to each one of us.

FP devs differ based on language here. Elm, like F#, tends to encourage "a bunch of functions and types in a file". While Elm supports modules, we don't really care where it came from; they're all pure, all deterministic, the compiler tells us if it works.

The builtin fsharp collections actually are just "immutable", not persistent as you mention. (Ref: https://github.com/fsharp/fsharp/blob/master/src/fsharp/FSharp.Core/map.fs. This is just an AVL tree that returns a copy on mutations: https://github.com/fsharp/fsharp/blob/577d06b9ec7192a6adafefd09ade0ed10b13897d/src/fsharp/FSharp.Core/map.fs#L118)

You can dive into .NET ecosystem by trying F#. It's functional-first language so this should be familiar.

ReScript code is just like F# or OCAML; it doesn’t have a function parse phase like JavaScript, so we have to define our functions and types first before we can use them. That’s fine, but makes explaining the code backwards (meaning you start at the bottom of the file and work your way up), so we’ll start at our lambda handler and explain each part, regardless of where it’s defined.

F# is a JavaScript and .NET language for web, cloud, data-science, apps and more.

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "F#"

OCaml family of languages like F#, Reason