Thank you for your reply. You made my day for suggesting Either 🤣🤣🤣. Now I feel like rewriting the whole thing with Left and Right.
I use Wlaschin's syntax for >=> while Milewski writes it like you do in his section on Kleisli categories (although in Haskell). The two implementations must be equal because of partial application (?). In a way I actually like your way better because it is very clear that the operator returns a function.
I hardly ever use point free-free programming since it makes debugging so much harder. Microsoft has a couple of guidelines on that.
Calling me an F#-developer is a bit of a stretch though and I am still learning. None of my colleagues have seen the light and they all use C#. So I am yet to write a complete project in F# which is such a shame.
Thanks for reading! I look forward to reading your articles on F#!
I tend to agree with you (and Microsoft) about point-free style, although there are some cases where it's absolutely essential (e.g. parser combinators). I even wrote a blog post about this here. However, in the function case, the compiler desugars it back to your original code with an argument called _arg1, so it can be easily inspected in a debugger.
I hope you keep going in your F# journey. I was/am in a similar situation, although I've at least convinced my colleagues to allow a few of my F# projects side-by-side with their C# projects. Thanks to .NET, they interop without problems.
I have been mixing C# and F# projects in the same solution as well and the interop works perfectly as you say but I find the tooling support to be troublesome. If you use "Find all references" or "Go to definition" in Visual Studio I cannot get it to work across different project types. Did you find a solution for that?
Thank you for your reply. You made my day for suggesting
Either🤣🤣🤣. Now I feel like rewriting the whole thing withLeftandRight.I use Wlaschin's syntax for
>=>while Milewski writes it like you do in his section on Kleisli categories (although in Haskell). The two implementations must be equal because of partial application (?). In a way I actually like your way better because it is very clear that the operator returns a function.I hardly ever use point free-free programming since it makes debugging so much harder. Microsoft has a couple of guidelines on that.
Calling me an F#-developer is a bit of a stretch though and I am still learning. None of my colleagues have seen the light and they all use C#. So I am yet to write a complete project in F# which is such a shame.
Thanks for reading! I look forward to reading your articles on F#!
I tend to agree with you (and Microsoft) about point-free style, although there are some cases where it's absolutely essential (e.g. parser combinators). I even wrote a blog post about this here. However, in the
functioncase, the compiler desugars it back to your original code with an argument called_arg1, so it can be easily inspected in a debugger.I hope you keep going in your F# journey. I was/am in a similar situation, although I've at least convinced my colleagues to allow a few of my F# projects side-by-side with their C# projects. Thanks to .NET, they interop without problems.
Thanks for the tip on point-free style.
I have been mixing C# and F# projects in the same solution as well and the interop works perfectly as you say but I find the tooling support to be troublesome. If you use "Find all references" or "Go to definition" in Visual Studio I cannot get it to work across different project types. Did you find a solution for that?
I've had the same experience. Tooling support is definitely not perfect, but Visual Studio is still the best IDE out there, I think.
VS is definitely the best. I have been doing some macOS/iOS stuff lately and XCode is a pain compared to VS.