Comment by avinium | Hacker News Reader

Comment by avinium | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I really don't think it adds complexity. Sure, it's going to be different, so there's a mental hurdle to clear in learning how a new stack works. That doesn't mean it's going to be more complex.

> 1. I now have two different languages for client and server, and can't share e.g. validation code.

You could use Fable to transpile F# to Javascript, keeping a single language

> 2. Dealing with 2nd class linux support (no REPL)

FSI is available under Linux, but I admit it's got some hairs on it. (FWIW, FSI on Windows needs a lot more TLC too).

> 3. No library that combines the maturity and simplicity of express.js. Yes I am aware of ASP.NET Web API and no I do not think that compares.

This is purely a matter of taste. While express.js is very accessible, I don't think it's any more so than Giraffe (a wrapper around ASP.NET Core).

I'm all-in on F# now - once you're over the (mild) initial learning curve, you see huge dividends from the smaller codebase, static typing, fewer null-checks and drastically less testing required.

Hi, thanks for the open minded response. It's an issue I enjoy discussing.

You could use Fable to transpile F# to Javascript, keeping a single language

That seems like another explosion of complexity. Source maps, mapping F# to a JS constructs when debugging, niche tooling, wrapping other JS libraries in a nicely typed F# package... IME it's best to avoid transpiling anything more exotic than typescript.

FSI is available under Linux, but I admit it's got some hairs on it. (FWIW, FSI on Windows needs a lot more TLC too).

I appear to be mistaken - I remember I was excited when the dotnet tool came out, but then they took away the REPL. FSI is mono only, right?

This is purely a matter of taste. While express.js is very accessible, I don't think it's any more so than Giraffe (a wrapper around ASP.NET Core).

Yes it's very subjective, we can agree to disagree here.

I'm all-in on F# now - once you're over the (mild) initial learning curve, you see huge dividends from the smaller codebase, static typing, fewer null-checks and drastically less testing required.

I love F#, I used it professionally and it was a great experience. And you are right, the conciseness is hard to beat. But the static typing/fewer null checks thing is easily solved in JS land with the typescript compiler.

I think these usually end up with two people agreeing to disagree :)

Yes, you do lose source maps by transpiling, but in my (albeit fairly limited experience), the type checking means I have drastically less debugging to do in the first place. You're right, though, the tooling leaves a lot to be desired (and this is also on the assumption you have TS definitions for third party libraries - I agree it becomes a lot more difficult if you don't).

FSI is available in both Mono and .NET Core 3 (which is still in preview).

I'm able to use FSI with the core-sdk 2.2.300, but I believe FSI is still in preview regardless of which SDK you're using.

> You could use Fable to transpile F# to Javascript, keeping a single language

That would only solve your runtime issues. You would still need to write the same code twice.

How do you figure?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com