undefined | Better HN

0 pointsiheartmemcache9y ago0 comments

After reading the article, I went into their IRC chan to post this question (i.e. are they leveraging all the research from really-smart(TM) PhD's at Microsoft Research & production testing that Rx has behind it). This guy has a doctorate, so I'd imagine there was a reason why RxJS wasn't leveraged, especially since it seems like a natural fit especially with Typed.*. And n general the Elm/Haskell community is way less fan-boi-trendy-node-js-macbooks-Rails-flavor-of-the-wheel guys who will nay-nay anything that is Microsoft.

I'd love to make the Elm jump, but it still has the Haskell stigma (not enough engineers making hiring difficult, too 'academic', etc) where my clients (enterprise) won't let me dev with it. They do however let F# in some projects. MS should do what they did for OCaml -> F#, but for Elm -> something_I_can_say_is_first_party_MS_supported.

0 comments

sotojuan9y ago

> And n general the Elm/Haskell community is way less fan-boi-trendy-node-js-macbooks-Rails-flavor-of-the-wheel guys who will nay-nay anything that is Microsoft.

This really hasn't been the case for RxJS at all. It's been praised and version 5 is largely a community effort rather than just an MS effort. You got Ben Lesh and Andre Staltz putting in the most work and neither are MS.

The only thing from MS people don't seem to give a chance is .NET. Everything recent (VS Code, open sourcing stuff, Chakra engine, etc) has been met positively and not dismissed.

WorldMaker9y ago

I feel some of this.

I almost had a Microsoft-first shop let me use Haskell when I pointed out how many of Haskell's lead developers worked at Microsoft Research UK.

As for the Microsoft "first party" F# equivalent for the web, that would be Typescript. Typescript's typing isn't yet to the rigor of OCaml, much less Haskell or Elm, but it's getting better every release.

weq9y ago

I learnt Haskell at uni in 2000. Now im a c# guy mostly unless im in the broswer. You know u can program in pretty much the same way using C# as u can haskell? I dont see the attraction of going to F#, but thats because i need to consider maintaince costs of the code-base as well as them both compiling down to IL.

Functional langauges are great, dont get me wrong, if i had the choice id probably give 'elixir' a 'rust' ;) but i make do with my existing c# knowledge, sprinkle in some Rx, isolate my side-effects in closures when pure functions cant be had, and im pretty happy with both the look, readability and maintance burden my code generates. The advantage of C# here over a first order functional lanuage is my ability to customise the syntax to make things self-documenting as well.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse