|
Good Point.
Devs don't really like the word "Flat" as it has negative connotations. E.G. Flat Tyre and feeling flat.
So probably not such a good name for a programming language.
Sharp is well accepted as we think that it refers to our minds, our intelligence and our wit.
On the other hand, being a rather sedentary job, I noticed that Bb or B Flat is a supposedly an expensive fat burning belly cream that is supposed to flatten your stomach and remove stretch marks.
Just looked this up but I don't believe it.
In addition I should add that I know what you are doing here.
When A# is finally released, just don't tell the Devs that it has equivalence with Bb, else it is doomed.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a musician, but I thought the sequence of sharps in the major scales was
0. (C major)
1. F# (G major)
2. C# (D major
3. G# (A major)
4. D# (E major)
5. A# (B major)
6. E# (F# major)
7. B# (C# major)
...
6000000. (Lee Majors)
|
|
|
|
|
People that does a lot of math coding seems to like it, as F# give less noisy code.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Sometimes I wonder about F#...
Sometimes I wonder about F-all. 
|
|
|
|
|
It's kind of less useful than it once was since C#'s LINQ and lambdas/anonymous methods are pretty mature and together provides functional programming within an imperative language, giving you the best of both worlds, so to speak. F# is geared toward purely functional programming like Scheme or Haskell, and as such is basically a glorified query language. It's great for mathematical style code, or query code, but not much else, honestly. While there's some modicum of state it's not really geared for stateful programming.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
yeah I had this feeling too...
my amin hobby interest is desktop UI app.. and F# seems to bring little here...
|
|
|
|
|
yeah it's really not geared for that. You need state.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Can anyone enlighten me and motivate me to give F# another try?
It is simpler than C#. The latter has more alterations in clef.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
If this list of F# attributes looks interesting, it might be worth your while giving it another go - otherwise probably not.
For me, the conciseness of F#, together with the rich type system make it the .NET language I prefer (not that I do much .NET programming - C++ is where I normally live).
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
Nice links, thanks! 
|
|
|
|
|
I learned Haskell at school.
Never did anything with it, but...
It gave me another way of thinking about code and that's priceless.
Since I've taken that course, my C# code looks different.
I've taken out the global variables and reduced side effects by a lot.
Most of my code is just thread-safe by default now.
And when it isn't, I know it isn't and I know the implications.
If that didn't happen to you after learning F# the last time, it may not have landed and you may want to give it another try.
C# isn't a functional language, so you may not reap all the benefits of functional programming, but at least all the best ones 
|
|
|
|
|
I took the same course, with exactly the same results
And F# is a natural extension to it.
|
|
|
|
|
I've read part of an F# book years ago, when it just came out (I think it was F# 2.0).
I think the language is beautiful and in some respects ahead of C#, but I've never done anything with it since then 
Sometimes I think F# is the playground for new C# features though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting sample, will take a deeper look, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
My favorite is B#, also known as C.
If pigs could fly, just imagine how good their wings would taste!
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
Today I unboxed an ESP32 wearable in watch form. I was thrilled. Color display, bluetooth, wifi, accelerometer, IR sensor, vibration thing, and a little sound module, all in a tiny package. It was about $50 USD.
The default firmware worked great, but I bought it so I could program it.
I go to program it. The thing takes fine and uploads, is clearly running - spewing to the serial port, but there is no display.
So I try another library. Nothing.
So I try another library. Still nothing.
So I try the source code for the default firmware. Still nothing.
The backlight for the display won't even turn on, which tells me that the pin assignments are completely wrong in the documentation or they're using a different display than the one in the documentation. At this point there is no other possibility, since their default firmware doesn't even work with it when I recompile it. Meaning the source is out of date - doesn't match the hardware.
So I've tried to contact them but it's a chinese company so who knows. LilyGo is a brand a lot of people use, but I'm not confident in their support.
Furthermore, I got an AI Thinker A1S ESP32 sound board with an unusual codec that nobody supports. The datasheet for it is incomplete. There is no example code that works except one that forks the entire ESP-IDF - and even that one wouldn't actually produce any sound for me. There's $30 wasted.
So I've dumped $80 into two development projects that work perfectly hardware wise, but because of lazy people refusing to keep their documentation and sources accurate, complete and up to date they are basically trash. That's the worse part. I know both of these devices work, but I may as well stomp them to pieces.
DOCUMENT WHAT YOU MAKE. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
All documentation is out of date by definition.
|
|
|
|
|
Not if the product hasn't changed since the documentation was produced.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
The programmer by this point is burned out, and tells them to find someone else to document it. "Can we ship it?" Yes.
Or, "I program; I'm not a technical writer".
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I think my second calling may have been as a writer. I do okay at technical writing despite no formal training in it. I think my articles here have helped me hone it as well.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't like the technical writing, but it's one of those things I know I have to do, for myself and any other developers that come down the line to look at my code. I try to be as accurate as possible with out overloading on details, except embedded; you can never have enough details.
I absolutely loathe making user "how to's" and other like documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
While it's not appropriate necessarily for technical documents (though maybe it should be) I find that the more fun I make something to read, the more fun I have writing it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Modern management.
Product lifespan is so short that documentation is irrelevant to them - it'll never be used because the new product next week will be different. So move the coder resource to the new product when it looks like the old one works and get more value out of it. If the resource complains, fire it and get another ...
It's not as if the customers are going to buy more than one of 'em anyway and they won't find out there's no support until we've got their money.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That's true and depressing. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
