Comment by darksaints

Comment by darksaints 2 days ago

I'm completely convinced that F# (along with Scala, Haskell, and OCaml) adoption has stalled due to having ridiculously bad build systems. More significantly, they are being passed up in favor of Rust, which is a great language but nonetheless a bad fit for a lot of problem domains, simply because Rust has a superior build system. Hell, 80% of the reason I choose Rust over C++ for embedded work is because of the build system.

It baffles me that there are languages with non-profit foundations and are financially backed by multiple corporations which still have bad build systems. It is the most important investment you can make into a programming language.

ddellacosta a day ago

I don't really get this take, at least wrt Haskell--I know less about the others. I don't disagree that it's not ideal, but I still would compare the combination of nix+cabal in Haskell favorably with anything I've used in Python, JS, Ruby, Clojure...and other ecosystems I'm forgetting. Python and JS in particular I've always found absolutely miserable to work with when it comes to dealing with dependencies. So I don't believe that this is why folks aren't choosing Haskell (I think it has a lot more to do with how different it is from most people's programming language experience, and how so much of the documentation is aimed at non-beginners).

Reply View 0 replies

jadenPete 2 days ago

It’s always puzzled me that so many languages have their own build systems and package managers. Why aren’t programming language-agnostic build systems like Bazel and Buck more popular? It seems so strange that every new programming language essentially has to reinvent the wheel multiple times, inventing a new build system, package manager, formatter, linter, etc. I wonder if we’ll ever see something like LLVM for these technologies.

Reply View 3 replies

pjc50 2 days ago

Firstly a strong desire to self-host: write the build system in the language itself.
Secondly, often very differently shaped requirements. The dotnet SDK tries to keep its build specification (.csproj) files editable by Visual Studio, which is why most of the stuff in them is just XML properties.
You probably could build C#/F# with Bazel but that's not what Microsoft chose, and you kind of need to stay aligned with them and the large amount of MSBuild files in the SDK.

Reply View | 0 replies
Rohansi 2 days ago

Because there are differences that go beyond just the language syntax. The build processes are very different for C++ vs. C#, vs. F#, etc.
C++: invoke compiler for all compilation units, invoke linker to combine object files into executable
C#: invoke compiler once with all source files listed
F#: same as C# AFAIK, except file order matters!

Reply View | 1 reply
- fodkodrasz 2 days ago
  
  C++ I have worked only a little with it, more so with C, but AFAIK order of files does kind-of matter, so at least declarations need to be present in each file upfront before use.
  C# has a multi-pass compiler so that it can compile and link the components from multiple files, without need of placeholder declarations, regardless of the order the symbols appear in the files.
  F# has a single pass compiler, which keeps the compiler implementation simpler, but the file, and symbol definition order does matter that way. This is totally intentional, this is supposed to make the codebase more straightforward, with which I personally agree with. This avoids the need for declarations and centralization of them, the includes all the baggage that comes with that approach, and all the complexity C# has. I have rarely found a limiting factor, though there are some cases when it can be a bit inconvenient, for me the application setup/composition (~DI, but I prefer more static approach in F#) needed some cumbersome refactoring in some cases (have only vague memories by now, and yes, I know co-recursive types exists)
  I really like F#, but rarely have to opportunity to work in it.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

torginus 2 days ago

My two cents is that F# hasn't received the same care and attention as C# and working with it can be awkward.

At the same time, a lot of the cool features (list comprehension, pattern matching, immutable records) have slowly trickled into c#, giving even less incentive to switch

Reply View 3 replies

fodkodrasz 2 days ago

I personally find the way these features were shoehorned into the C# syntax an eyesore, I have quite some C# experience, and I think the language is getting more and more convoluted and noisy, with ever less coherent syntax.
On the other hand many of these features are really convenient and handy in F#. Adding many of the oh-my-gamedev-such-speed features from C# to F# also makes its syntax less pleasant to work with.
Personally I also think that the C# async model is terrible, and was a grave mistake. The F# async model with computation expressions, and explicit control over their execution context was a better approach, and I'm really sorry the hack-something-together to unblock the event loop WPF/frontend-dev usecase won over the more disciplined backend-focused approach.

Reply View | 2 replies
- n4r9 a day ago
  
  I have the opposite experience. Being able to write stuff like this is refreshing:
  public record Name(string First, string? Last = null); public record Register(Name[] Members); ... var register = new Register([new("John", "Doe"), new("Neo")])
  It probably depends on what you're writing. I'm not using async much at all so I don't feel the pain of it.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  fodkodrasz a day ago
  
  For me the pain is twofold:
  a) it poisons all interfaces it touches (common trait of async in other languages as well)
  b) C# async Task -s typically are created in Running state without any easy control over when, where and how they will execute. Controlling these things is far from trivial, and and requires lot of extra effort.
  In F# the traditional async block is a builder for an async workflow, and you could then submit this workflow to an executor that is easy to configure for the execute model best suites you, eg. thread pool, single thread with continuations, maximum number of "operations" in flight, etc. The fact that it is not started right away also makes it easy to create your own executors.
  Having to deal with backpressure in C# style async is way harder IMO. On the other hand when writing a UI app, always having to submit to an executor might seem inconvenient, and you generally don't have to handle thousands of concurrent requests all reaching out to a (different) backend and avoid DOS-ing it. This is why I wrote that this way made with a frontend-centric approach in my opinion.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

Lyngbakr 2 days ago

While I've never used it in anger, I really quite like dune. Was there something specific that makes you characterise it as "ridiculously bad"?

Reply View 3 replies

noahbp 2 days ago

Not Dune exactly, but having to run 'eval $(opam env)' in the terminal every time you open an OCaml project rather than the default being npm-like, where you can just open the directory and use the package manager command without having to think about it.

Reply View | 2 replies
- anentropic 2 days ago
  
  (writing all the below while being aware you likely know much more about OCaml than I do...!)
  Possibly `eval $(opam env)` is something that should just go in your ~/.zshrc
  The OCaml folks have done some work recently to improve the onboarding documentation, which I think is going in a positive direction
  e.g. https://ocaml.org/docs/installing-ocaml (the eval as a one-off post install command)
  And then guiding people to use 'switches' https://ocaml.org/docs/opam-switch-introduction, which I totally missed when I started with the language.
  > Local switches are automatically selected based on the current working directory.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- johnisgood 2 days ago
  
  The only issues I've had with OCaml's build system is using "ocamlopt", "ocamlbuild", "ocamlfind" manually, but this was solved by OASIS and now Dune. I don't need to think about it. It automatically compiles when I save the file in Emacs. Very easy to set it up (one time setup).
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

germandiago 2 days ago

I use C++ with Meson and Conan and I can say that there is an initial learning curve if you need to adapt Conan recipes but once you get past, the results are quite good.

Reply View 0 replies

DeathArrow 2 days ago

I would call .NET build system excellent.

Reply View 2 replies

fodkodrasz 2 days ago

Lets settle on a finally good enough. I can give honest compliments on learning from the past problems and from the better examples in the indsutry.
You may not remember the early .net core times with yeoman and other then-current javascript ecosystem originated things applied in really cumbersome, half-assed ways, with lacking docs and always being in flux for years. The project.json era was terrible.
Also msbuild was way worse 10-15 years ago...
Mono with automake was special circle of hell IMO, I have very small exposure but it was really unproductive and painful.

Reply View | 1 reply
- jayd16 a day ago
  
  Whats pretty interesting is how outdated opinions of .NET are so sticky. Are we talking about what javascript was like 10-15 years ago?
  I guess Microsoft could really make some headway if they got more folks to try it today.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

throwaway2037 2 days ago

    > I'm completely convinced that F# (along with Scala, Haskell, and OCaml) adoption has stalled due to having ridiculously bad build systems.

Scala? I am not trolling here: Are you joking? Scala is part of the Java ecosystem. Sure, Maven gets lots of hate on HN, but it is very mature and has excellent integration with IDEs and CI/CD systems (TeamCity, Jenkins, etc.). In the last 10 years, many Java developers have moved to Gradle, which has equally good integration.

    > Hell, 80% of the reason I choose Rust over C++ for embedded work is because of the build system.

What is wrong with CMake for C++?

Reply View 3 replies

dkarl 2 days ago

Perl is mature, too.
Maven is awful. SBT is awful. Gradle is awful. I've used them all professionally, and the best I can say about them is that you can get the job done with them.
Newer languages and newer build systems are much better experiences, because of decades more hindsight and because language designers think about tooling from the start. Java was designed with the assumption that all software projects were built with Make, and with no ambition to improve on that. There was no Java-specific build tool until Ant was released as a standalone tool circa 2000.
> What is wrong with CMake for C++?
Granted, most of what's wrong with CMake is the problem it solves. Probably there's no solution that wouldn't be at least close to as awful as CMake. But it is objectively a hideous experience compared to any language created in the last 15 years.

Reply View | 0 replies
oblio 2 days ago

How long are Scala compilation times for a Hello World CLI, a Hello World basic webapp and for a reasonably sized production size code base?
My guess is that it's much longer than for the equivalent Java apps.
> What is wrong with CMake for C++?
It doesn't manage dependencies.

Reply View | 1 reply
- oriolid a day ago
  
  CMake has fetch_content, and CPM is a package manager built on top of it. They are not great.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies