It's got some serious bugs that make my heart stop.
The biggest one is Undo. Looks like the plugin keeps it's own list of modifications that were performed. So when sometimes I press "u" to undo the latest change - Visual Studio gets suspended for a minute or two, and all my changes that I did since I opened Visual Studio (could be a day or a week) are pretty much gone. The work around is to close the file without saving.
Hopefully stuff like this will get fixed now that the project is accepting contributions from other developers. There was a point where his employment agreement prevented such from happening.
It's great to hear that VsVim is finally accepting contributions from outside of Microsoft.
During my internship at Microsoft last summer, there was one day where the interns in STB got into groups of about 5 and presented on topics of strategic importance to Microsoft. My group presented on how Microsoft could better embrace open source, and during my part of the presentation I focused heavily on how many of Microsoft's "OSS" projects don't accept outside contributions.
I used VsVim to showcase how Microsoft was doing open source wrong. It was a great example, because Jared Parsons seemed to be doing everything he could to be a good OSS citizen and reach out to those who typically use an OSS stack (by putting his project on github instead of codeplex for example), but he had to turn down contributors outside of Microsoft as a matter of policy. I also didn't suspect that Microsoft would be repurposing a Vim emulator plugin written in F# for any of its closed source projects, so it didn't make sense to stop outsiders from contributing out of fear of losing complete ownership of the codebase.
Several high-level execs in STB including Satya Nadella were there, so I would like to believe that my presentation played some small part in Microsoft now allowing outside contributions to VsVim. A discussion of VsVim's contribution policy ate up a lot of the question and answer session after my group's presentation, so it was pretty clear that I wasn't the only there who thought it was messed up.
What version of VsVim are you using? There was a bug with this exact behavior in 1.1 (and possibly 1.1.1). I got it fixed for the 1.2 release which is the current version in the Visual Studio gallery.
Happens all the time. The new and front pages are too busy so worthwhile articles often get overlooked. But it is good to repost as you did, I will usually look at the original and add an upvote.
Isn't that since Computing falls under umbrella of Mathematics and there is no Nobel prize for Mathematics (due to Nobel's wife having lover who was a Mathematician, so Nobel excluded the whole Math field from getting the prize) - Computing must have Turing Award instead
I programmed OCaml for couple of years, and now I've been programming F# for past 3 years.
OCaml is more verbose than F#. F# is on par with Python.
F# besides having all features of OCaml. (You could (and maybe still can) compile OCaml using F# compiler.) also has some nice extras.
Workflows (think monads in Haskel). Workflows in turn used to implement Asynchronous Workflows, and mailbox thread processing. So you get Erlang style multithreading.
Another point for F#: since it's on .Net and .Net actually runs on multicore machines the way one would think it should run. OCaml on the other hand has garbage collection that does not play with multicore very well.
Last but not least: F# can call any .Net function or create any .Net object -> you have access to a lots of things out of the box. F# - batteries included; OCaml - batteries are not included.
My memory of OCaml is faded. Can you explain how Ocaml can be more verbose? Especially since the inference story in F# is not as full due to having to deal with objects with ad-hoc polymorphism. I don't see how Ocaml can be more verbose. The core language of both is virtually identical.
Also F# is not all of Ocaml. To mind, it lacks functors, ocaml strength modules and polymorphic variants. Ocaml also has the potential to be faster. At least in the single core case.
I meant that the syntax of OCaml is more verbose.
In F# (now that the #light directive is a default) you need less comparing to OCaml. Do not need to add ;; to terminate an expression (except for in REPL). Do not need to have "done" to close every loop declaration. Do not need to have "in" for "let" declarations.
As far as I know you never could compile OCaml with F#, it lacks nearly all advanced features of OCaml. You can do the same as workflows in OCaml with delimited continuations [1], except it is even more fluid. That said, for most software the availability of the .NET library is more important than all of this. F# also has some very cool and compelling features like type providers and extensible pattern matching.
Some important features, such as modules, are missing in F#. I suppose the intention is to replace them by interfaces and classes, but modules in particular are an important omission that makes me prefer OCaml (though I like both ;)).
A few other missing features: polymorphic variants, structural types for objects, functors, camlp4 (though it's not really O'Caml core, it's pretty nice).
I don't think F# is necessarily more compelling. It is subjective to what you weight higher.
If you go to the article at the bottom it lists some limitations. Libraries, tooling and proper parallelism including in GC. Also IMO F# ties OOP with functional better, on par with Scala.
If you weight these against F#'s weaknesses: lack of full modules and functors, tied to .net and mono / non native code generation and they come up being more of an issue then you would prefer F#. Which is the choice I ended up making.
Take a look at the limitations section of the article at the end. F# doesn't have any of those. It has great tools, massive library support, and really good parallelism support. Unfortunately it comes with its own drawbacks. It is a more complicated language. The type system is weaker. Performance isn't as good.
I may be an outlier, but the ability to compile to native code is the main reason I'm interested in OCaml. I already know enough VM-based languages, so having something that works close to the metal fills an important gap in my skill set.
(One not inconsequential issue: I spend 20 minutes the other day googling the F# "as" keyword. In the end, all you can do is read the language spec and source)
Look at this video[1], 1:09:40. Apparently their code is too functional (heh…) for F# (or, well, the CLR). Not sure whether that has changed with recent versions of both F# and the .NET platform, although I think some problems are really, really hard to solve if you want to stay compatible with .NET libraries.
About Us page says this :
reliability Since 2000, millions of brides have trusted Isweddingdress for the most important dress(and day) of their lives. We've helped create more dream weddings than any other brial store. So you can relax with the confidence that comes from knowing we'll be here for you, for your entire wedding, and happily ever after. quality & craftsmanship Exclusive designs. Hand-crafted details. Exceptional fit and feel. Our dedicated design and fit teams are obsessed with creating gorgeous wedding gowns. Their sole focus is to deliver the best quality, best fitting dressed at affortable prices. Value Isweddingdress was founed on the belief that every bride should look and feel like a million dollars, regardless of her budget. From design to delivery, we lead the entire process, so you don't have to pay unnecessary makeups. That's the secret to helping you put together a look that's priceless, for less. We make it personal Our caring consultants go to great lengths to help you find the perfect gown. It's important to us that your wedding is exactly how you envisioned so we do our best to provide thoughtful, personalized suggestions to every individual bride.
Amazing assortment Exclusive colors and style. Easy-to- coordinate fashions, invitations ceremony and reception items. Unlimited ideas to personalize your day. By offering more options than you'll find anywhere else. Isweddingdress has become the destionation of choice for today's savvy brides. A perfect fit Our collections are designed to give you the most flattering look ever. No other bridal company has spent more tine getting the fit right for sizes 0-26W. We offer a wide range of bridal gown styles in misses, petite, and tall, with each desigh reproportioned to fit fabulously and save on alterations. And all of our bridesmaid dressed and separates are available in sizes 2-26. View our collection online and make an appointment to try on your favorites.
Hey, so while we're talking about it, what WOULD be some good resources on the internet (and maybe in books) for understanding "this sort of thing" better? I assume "this sort of thing" is runtimes, VMs, compilers, languages, dynamic and otherwise?
Rich Hickey's Clojure bookshelf includes Lisp in Small Pieces, which I've read most of, and I understand is sort of the go-to Lisp implementation book nowadays, but is possibly out of date for compilers in general. It also includes Essentials of Programming Languages (2nd ed?), Concepts Techniques and Models, the T Programming Language book, the JVM spec... but are there other books that would be crucial to enabling someone to open up the Clojure source and understand some of the optimizations or understand some of the issues re: dynamic languages on the JVM, compiling dynamic languages, and/or making dynamic languages fast in general (see SBCL)?
I know there's "Clojure in Small Pieces" which aims to be some kind of literate treatment of the Clojure source, but I think that's a WIP last time I checked.
You're conflating what [you need | you think I need] with what I actually do need. They are not equivalent. The programming I do daily to make money consumes my non-school time. Plus even before I started classes and was programming professionally, this likely isn't something I wouldve been able to grasp in a reasonable timeframe. See, I'm usually (and happily) the stupidest guy in a room full of programmers. Clearly you're not; good for you. But Internet resources about the internal workings of compilers aren't that great for dumbasses like me.
A colleague (we're in NJ) was on the phone with Toronto, and the Canadians felt it a short time (10 seconds?) after we did. How fast do these things travel?
About 10 years ago during a minor earthquake in the California Bay Area, I happened to be on the phone with my girlfriend at the time who was in Mountain View, I was in San Jose. The conversation went something like:
GF: "Oh! There's an earthquake!"
Me: "What, no there isn-- Oh wow, there's an earthquake!"
(few seconds of shaking)
GF: "Okay, it's over"
Me: "No it isn't, I stil feel-- Oh yeah, it's over!"
I'd estimate the delay to have been ~2-3 seconds over ~20 miles -- but I don't remember where the epicenter was, or how deep the quake was.
Well, let's suppose you're in Trenton, NJ (since you didn't specify). The distance between Trenton and Toronto is 546 km. If it took 10 seconds to travel there, then it was traveling at 54.6 km/s, or 196560 km/hour. For comparison, the speed of sound is 340.29 m/s, or 0.34029 km/s; that means that the shockwave travelled at Mach 160.
Of course, this assumes that it was traveling over the surface, so it's really lower than this, but I'm unsure of how much. From what I'm seeing, the fastest earthquakes generally travel about 13 km/s, so this may be way high.
It's got some serious bugs that make my heart stop.
The biggest one is Undo. Looks like the plugin keeps it's own list of modifications that were performed. So when sometimes I press "u" to undo the latest change - Visual Studio gets suspended for a minute or two, and all my changes that I did since I opened Visual Studio (could be a day or a week) are pretty much gone. The work around is to close the file without saving.