The biggest for me is needing to understand the .NET ecosystem without knowing C#. Then there's the lack of beginner information. I own several F# books and none of them assume you're coming from a scripting language background. I eventually gave up for good. OCaml doesn't have the .NET problem, but I found it to be unergonomic in a lot of ways.
Make no mistake, it's a cool language that I'd love to be good at. The code always looks elegant, I'm just terrible at writing it.
There's definitely room for a book or blog series along the lines of "F# for python programmers" or something.
Unfortunately there's some level of .NET tooling you need to understand before you can do much today, and several .NET concepts creep in with that.
The good news is that .NET Interactive is shaping up to be a great way to avoid most of that. At least so far all you need to do is install the .NET SDK, then install a VSCode plugin and you're good to go - just write code like you would in a python notebook, and acquiring packages is even easier than in Python: https://github.com/dotnet/interactive#notebooks-with-net
I had the exact same problem. Even all the http servers had a lot of .net boilerplate to get started. A lot of that should be abstracted. I built an http server library that abstracts the .net parts. https://wiz.run/
The hello world server:
open Wiz.Server
open Wiz.Context
open Wiz.Route
let myHandler ctx =
ctx |> sendText "Abra Kadabra Kalamazoo!"
let myRoutes = [
get "/" myHandler
]
genServer()
|> setRoutes myRoutes
|> run
I was thinking as a conscious strategy that would impact the way all libraries are built. In my example I posted above, there are no dotnet APIs showing. Its all abstracted. Libraries should create new APIs that are just wrappers around the dotnet library.
open System
open Microsoft.AspNetCore.Builder
open Microsoft.AspNetCore.Hosting
open Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting
open Microsoft.Extensions.Logging
open Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection
open Giraffe
let webApp =
choose [
route "/ping" >=> text "pong"
route "/" >=> htmlFile "/pages/index.html" ]
type Startup() =
member __.ConfigureServices (services : IServiceCollection) =
// Register default Giraffe dependencies
services.AddGiraffe() |> ignore
member __.Configure (app : IApplicationBuilder)
(env : IHostEnvironment)
(loggerFactory : ILoggerFactory) =
// Add Giraffe to the ASP.NET Core pipeline
app.UseGiraffe webApp
[<EntryPoint>]
let main _ =
Host.CreateDefaultBuilder()
.ConfigureWebHostDefaults(
fun webHostBuilder ->
webHostBuilder
.UseStartup<Startup>()
|> ignore)
.Build()
.Run()
0
I get that you have to now. my point is that you shouldn't have to. lot of it could be abstracted. the more that is abstracted then the lower the barrier for newcomers.
Using Python doesn't require you to learn a (big) second language before you can do anything useful, though. F# arguably does. Maybe that is the best F# that F# can be. Which, for a lot of people, is not good enough.
I am a C# developer and I find F# very interesting. I love the functional paradigms in C# and I want to be able to use more of a functional style.
I like how well written F# code is less verbose while being very readable.
I want to learn another language. I was thinking about Go, Rust and Kotlin. I excluded Kotlin because it seems it doesn't bring me much value over C# and I excluded Go for the same reason.
I dabbled a bit in Rust, but so far I don't like it's verbosity, the fact that it is boiler plate-ish.
So I reminded myself of F# and started learning that. I know that it has a huge disadvantage compared to the others, it is far less popular, but on the other hand, I can use F# in the same projects I use C# and some of the thing I learn while learning F# might be applicable to C#.
I feel that F# is a niche language mainly because of of two things: Microsoft doesn't care much about it to push it and help it to thrive. And they don't push it because it has a small community. I seems that Microsoft is investing more resources in Python or Java than in F#. The other thing is that the largest community sees it as a Microsoft language and that is enough of a reason not to touch it.
Whatever growing adoption F# has its due to efforts of it's tiny but very enthusiastic community which is helping it to jump some barriers like frontend programming.
Yes, my experience as well. Clojure is more "lisp for java programmers" than "java for lisp programmers".
Most of introductory material I found was good in explaining functional concepts, lisp approach to solving problems etc, but I thought assumed a working knowledge of the JVM ecosystem.
For someone utterly unfamiliar to Java/JVM world would find clojure extremely baffling, cryptic error messages, needing to be familiar with the rather large java standard library, etc.
That is the issue with any guest language, because it is impossible to hide the platform, unless the language is so constrainted that is practically useless.
It is a hard to swallow truth, but guest languages really require understanding of the underlying platform.
Another example, no matter one's opinion on C or JavaScript, mastering them is a much more confortable life on UNIX/POSIX platforms and browsers than trying to pretend they aren't there.
It can also be frustrating if you know a little OO (but not how Java does everything) and then try to learn a functional language that sits on top of one of these OO tar pits of an ecosystem. I can write Python classes, but seeing the complicated mess of Java is frustrating as that has to be learned as well. Nothing against Java btw (it has its place), but it does seem to require a lot of boilerplate.
First off -- I don't really want to get into bickering about Java is OO or not.
That said:
I think that Java is best understood as an enterprise programming language, not as an object-oriented one.
There's a very peculiar class of programming languages that are a product of a specific period of history. At the time, companies were looking for ways to scale beyond the limits of the then-dominant procedural programming paradigm. But they had a lot of existing investment in it, and so teams were naturally hesitant to abandon it entirely.
This situation created an ecological niche that allowed a very peculiar class of programming language to take root. Java and C++ are the best-known examples, but there were others such as Objective-C. C# and Visual Basic.NET are probably the last notable examples. These were multi-paradigm languages that layered object-oriented features on top of procedural bones. Earlier examples such as C++ and Objective-C made this quite explicit, and were likely to even have their atomic types not be objects. Later examples eliminate some features such as non-object types and global functions and variables, but still retain much of their procedural heritage if you know what you're looking for. Probably the most notable one here is a tendency to favor explicitly state-oriented idioms over properly encapsulating state.
Java falls somewhere in the middle. It has later features like full-fledged garbage collection, but lacks others such as a consistently object-oriented type system.
I think that its tendency toward boilerplate directly reflects its stage in this evolution. Basically, what we perceive as boilerplate is really a hold-over from how procedural languages tended to be generally less declarative - it was up to the programmer to handle a lot more stuff for themselves.
I have two remarks here: even if some procedural languages like C seem boiler plate-ish by requiring you to write everything instead of having a platform which offer a high abstractions that has two huge advantages: you are in absolute control and you understand everything from how the bits are layed out in memory and system calls to higher level business logic. So if you need to change something, add a feature, improve performance you know exactly where you have to intervene.
Encapsulating state is very bad on the large scale because you have hidden state in lots of places and you can't argue about what a program does, how it does it and how to modify it. You have to write lots of tests to make sure things won't broke.
In some very large OOP codebases adding features or fixing bugs becomes a nightmare. Every small change you make will break hundreds of tests and while you fix the code to pass those, you will break other tests. Thing that can take days at most in sane codebases might take weeks.
I would argue that, if the scope of impact on a change is that large, then, by definition, you have not encapsulated your implementation.
(That, or you should not have made the change that way in the first place. Much like best practices for API changes involve shipping a new version in parallel and then slowly migrating everything over to it, a breaking change to the behavior of a class that really does have a legitimate reason to be used pervasively - say, a collection - shouldn't be done by just suddenly breaking all the code that uses it.)
Which speaks to exactly the distinction I'm trying to draw when I say, "a tendency to favor explicitly state-oriented idioms over properly encapsulating state." Note that simply sticking getters and setters on your state is not the same thing as encapsulating it.
It's kind of hard to explain the difference except by example, so I'm not really prepared to dive into it here. To be honest, I think the best way to get a feel for it is to read and understand the source code of an early Smalltalk system. Smalltalk-80 is small enough that one can get a decent feel for how everything works in an evening or two.
Then a C compiler optimizer decides that knows better and changes the table underneath, or maybe it doesn't but the Intel microcode unit decides to write the Assembly instructions in unexpected way.
Or that spot we were 100% certain was a bottleneck as it clearly wasn't micro-optimized C code, shows 0.1% hit on the V-Tune profiler.
Same. F#, Clojure, Scala, & Kotlin have all been the same for me. Python's VM is written in C, but I have no reason to know C. In Clojure they have you call out to Java libraries a ton. Someone always tells me that this isn't true on here, but it was my experience as well. Having to learn so many tools like emacs or CIDRE or Leinegen was also a turn off.
I really love Clojure, but I have a lot of experience on the JVM so I didn't have to climb multiple learning curves simultaneously.
While the clojure ecosystem has a lot of wonderful, bright and helpful people in it, and clojure itself is technically impressive (esp. its collections implementation), the new user experience isn't great.
I'm not an experienced emacs user, so that makes it doubly difficult, as the ironed-out workflows seem to assume that you are (which is fair, as emacs and lisp are like peanut butter and jelly). However, these days it's fair to assume that a new clojure user is probably learning 'clojure', 'lispy ways', 'java/jvm', and 'emacs' simultaneously.
I think that calva/vscode has a lot of potential to drop emacs off that list, which is welcome, as its learning curve alone is legendary. If you look at that list, it should not be surprising that the community is small. There's so much to learn that I it seems too much to even start.
There are multiple options to approach the Clojure* ecosystem. But yes, it is more focused towards dedicated and experienced developers overall. I use IntelliJ Idea + Cursive for development and that seems quite comfortable. I have a very rough sketch of the environment setup for a real app here: https://www.orgpad.com/s/hfxYQYkcLYV We use a similar setup to develop OrgPad itself.
You can use Babashka https://github.com/babashka/babashka for a quick and dirty setup to get you up and running quickly. That is also useful for scripting some things. You might also try shadow-cljs + ClojureScript, if you are more at home in the Node.js/ Browser JavaScript ecosystem and want to do something with it. There is a new "(Not)Babashka" but built on ClojureScript: https://github.com/borkdude/nbb that might be interesting as well.
Borkdude is a total boss; babashka and clj-kondo are amazing.
Also, don't get me wrong, I reiterate that I already love clojure, I just wish there were fewer and lower barriers for others to join in.
I realize there are already people on that case like https://practical.li/, and are doing an excellent job. I also think that things like https://github.com/Olical/conjure are pretty awesome, being predominantly a vimmer.
I'm surprised, I found clojure even while I was a pretty much total beginner programmer fairly easy to get into, via clojure for the brave and true at least was very good for getting the basics.
Clojure for the brave and true shows the exact problem.
Chapter 1: install and learn the JVM
Chapter 2: Emacs
Chapter 3, finally start learning Clojure if you made through the first two chapters. Those first two chapters are going to filter out quite a few potential Clojure learners.
Also there are lots of learning resources here: https://fsharp.org/learn/ some for guys coming from scripting languages like Python. As a matter of fact, F# can be used for scripting, too.
I'm not saying that you can't write an F# script, but that the path to getting one written is not obvious to those coming from scripting languages that are much simpler than the VAST .NET & JVM ecosystems. There is always some bizarre .NET arcana that gets in the way.
Sometimes that's true but I've found as soon as I need packages things get complex. I don't find F# that hard scripting wise; at times found it easier than some other languages especially when I need to import libraries into my script. Instead of needing to install a system wide pip package, set up a project with Maven/Gradle, etc around the script, etc. With F# and the like you just do something like:
#r "nuget: FSharp.Data"
And it pulls that third party package into your script context. Its kind of empowering when I can just copy and paste script text to my colleague (e.g. email/slack) and all they need to do is copy/paste the text into a single text file and it just works third party packages included with a vanilla .NET 5+ installation. Just run 'dotnet fsi scriptFile.fsx`. Auto-complete picks up all the new types as well.
Make no mistake, it's a cool language that I'd love to be good at. The code always looks elegant, I'm just terrible at writing it.