vt-clj VS Fable: F# |> BABEL

Perhaps, you should ask a question, why didn't the author reverse the question? Something like "How on earth was my implementation in a JITed language 50x slower on a warmed-up benchmark?" Where is the output of the profiler showing the exact bottlenecks? Of course, you can look at the repo and deduce some stuff, but it is a good habit to mention some key points about the environment such as compiler/ language/ browser versions, compiler settings, the hardware used etc.

Could he use more appropriate data structures? Could he avoid all the schema stuff that doesn't really improve the readability? Could he use better data structures later avoiding slow functions like update-in and migrating the bottlenecks to transducers and transients perhaps?

The author just did a rewrite and that is totally ok. He is trying things out and that is also quite alright. He provided some rather high-level benchmarks that would be really time consuming the reproduce and explain in more detail.

We have looked at the cljs code (e.g. https://github.com/asciinema/vt-clj/blob/master/src/asciinem...) with my colleague and it definitely isn't the best possible Clojure(Script) code around from a readability nor it seems performance standpoint.

To summarize, good that @sickill got a discussion going but it is best to step back and think about it in more depth. We all should apply more of this "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

This appear to be the source for the ClojureScript: https://github.com/asciinema/vt-clj

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.