back to article Span hits F#, LinkedIn gets mumbly, and UWP (yes, it's still clinging on) furnished with new toys

In a week where Outlook went dark, prices crept up and Office Server 2019 emerged, blinking, into the light, here are some tales from Redmond you may have missed. F# version bump Microsoft continued its support for the F# programming language with a preview of version 4.5. The jump from 4.1 is aimed at getting the language …

  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Perfect...

    Those developers are likely suffering from "platform fatigue" – a syndrome arising from the seemingly endless array of platforms launched by a software maker to much fanfare before being quietly stuffed into a bag of rocks and dropped off Brighton Pier a few years later.

    Yep. Platform fatigue.

    The only remaing question is...

    Was it the Palace Pier or the remains of the West pier that was used to dispose of the body?

    1. Alister Silver badge

      Re: Perfect...

      The only remaing question is...

      Why the hell would Microsoft drag their redundant platforms all the way to Blighty, to drop them off Brighton Pier?

      :)

      1. Franco Silver badge

        Re: Perfect...

        "Why the hell would Microsoft drag their redundant platforms all the way to Blighty, to drop them off Brighton Pier?"

        Legacy compatibility, there's a line of code hidden that requires disposal off that pier that's been there since Windows 3.11

      2. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Perfect...

        Why the hell would Microsoft drag their redundant platforms all the way to Blighty, to drop them off Brighton Pier?

        The better to hide the body maybe? They certainly don't want the rotting corpse in their basement.

    2. Dave K Silver badge

      Re: Perfect...

      If you're Microsoft, the only correct thing to do is to keep changing your mind about which pier you use. Then once people are used to it being at least one of Brighton's piers, switch again and start using the pier at Weston Super Mare. Because that's the Microsoft way...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Span...

    Another workaround attempting to give managed languages the performance of native ones... in a more complex way.

  3. Jack of Shadows Silver badge
    Mushroom

    At least until Microsoft decides to move the goalposts once again.

    They can move them anywhere they like, but this kicker has limped off the field one to many times, needing mass quantities of vodka to numb the pain.

  4. Czrly

    Does UWP have a purpose, yet?

    The last time I tried to make a UWP app was long before UWP was UWP. It was back on Windows 8 and, after a brief play, I scrapped the sample and went on with my developer life. The whole experiment can be summed up in one exclamation: "You can't do wot !?!"

    So... it's now 2018 and I believe that the sandbox is a little more diverse and that UWP hands developers a little more power but UWP apps are still not true desktop applications and can't do everything. If I was to start a UWP based project, I would have to do two things. Firstly, I'd have to accept that I'd be locked in to UWP and the only way out would be a total rewrite. Secondly, I'd have to completely plan the entire foreseeable life of the project and be absolutely certain that UWP allowed me to implement all the features I would ultimately need.

    Sure, I could do these things. Why would I?

    Both of those sound like a lot of hard work and a lot of risk and I still don't see the benefits that UWP offers in exchange. It just doesn't offer anything that isn't already available elsewhere -- most of which I have used or experimented with in the past, a lot of which is cross-platform.

    Microsoft are asking me to leave a known world of infinite possibility in favour of an unknown sandbox governed by arbitrary decisions. That's like asking someone to give up their somewhat aged but perfectly reliable Skoda in favour of a shiny new toy car. However awesome the toy car may be, it is still a toy!

    The only reason I would ever use UWP would be if an employer dictated that I do so and even that seems vanishingly unlikely because UWP is not really suitable for business applications -- most of which now run in the browser, anyway, unless they need very specialised access to local hardware which UWP probably doesn't permit.

    Oh... and on the LinkedIn thing: you can now send people a one-line voice clip saying: "You've got mail!". That's totally a use-case!

    1. iron Silver badge

      Re: Does UWP have a purpose, yet?

      "Firstly, I'd have to accept that I'd be locked in to UWP and the only way out would be a total rewrite"

      No you wouldn't and no it wouldn't, respectively. Your UWP app could also be run on Android, iOS, MacOS and Tizen if you use Xamarin. Even if you don't go that route a lot of code could be easily portable to other frameworks and platforms if you use MVVM and .Net Standard 2.0.

      1. Nolveys Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: Does UWP have a purpose, yet?

        Your UWP app could also be run on Android, iOS, MacOS and Tizen if you use Xamarin.

        "Bessie, I dun told you that you'd best learn to ride that bicycle else you'd get a whoopin!"

        WACK! WACK! WACK! WACK!

        (frantic mooing)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does UWP have a purpose, yet?

      UWP is dead-end. Without Windows mobile, there's zero purpose of it. Nobody wants it on the desktop.

      Only Microsoft benefit from it, and any apps they produce don't have the same restrictions.

      I wasted some time with UWP, but anyone writing anything new with UWP deserve what they get.

    3. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Does UWP have a purpose, yet?

      Yes, the purpose of UWP is to make the Microsoft Store successful.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anti-F#ism?

    a syntax aimed at solving complex analytical problems

    I know that these days "solving complex analytical problems" means actually managing to get a meaningful SQL statement together....

    Isn't F# just a bit like Haskell, with Microsoftian flavor, i.e. the main feature of it is being strongly typed functional (an idea with us since the 70s, rememberember?)

    From Let’s be mainstream! User focused design in Elm (Transcription of a talk by Evan Czaplicki)

    The problem with that is that in 1973, ML was introduced. This is one year after C. C was 1972. For some reason, that didn’t work out. Something mysterious happened. So we had another chance in 1990. Standard ML came out. This was actually five years before Java. Java is 1995. We could have gone that route, but for some reason it didn’t happen. In 1996, we had OCaml. This is one year after Java. It has objects. It’s got it all. What’s the problem?

    1. Steve Channell
      Unhappy

      Re: Anti-F#ism?

      Functional languages always suffered from the need for larger memory for immutability and all the recursive evaluation, before tail-call-optimisation was properly implemented (JAVA is still a work in progress in this perspective). It is only now that immutability adds more value (through parallelism) than the cost of memory offsets - this is especially so with GPGPU.

      If you needed to know how many people are in a queue, imperatively you could stop people joining or leaving - and count them, but that breaks down when people join and leave long queues with contention. Functionally you’d ask the people to add 1 to the number the person behind them had (and 1 it there was nobody) - scale is not an issue and no contention: The imperative approach is always simpler when you don’t really understand the problem

    2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Anti-F#ism?

      Isn't F# just a bit like Haskell, with Microsoftian flavor

      More "OCaml for .NET". Haskell is a member of the ML family, but a more distant one (in its syntax, lazy evaluation, and love of monads) than OCaml or F#. F# is similar to OCaml in many ways; basically, it dispensed with some OCaml things the F# designers didn't like (e.g. the module system), cleaned up some syntax, and added integration with various .NET features.

  6. Dwarf Silver badge

    Fluent

    Am I the only one who thinks efflouent when I read this ?

    1. Anonymous Bullard

      Re: Fluent

      I read it as "flatulent"

    2. Alister Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: Fluent

      Am I the only one who thinks efflouent when I read this ?

      Very probably, although others might be thinking effluent...

  7. s. pam
    Coffee/keyboard

    LinkedIn's app is crap

    Has anyone ever looked at the size of the app? 534MB is the biggest, lard arsed app I've ever seen on an iPad/iPhone.

    It subsequently has been deleted, just like I disabled the Dain Bread Siri crap o'app.

    Never looked back but in pleasure ;-) of the decision a few months ago!

  8. eswan

    "Universal Windows Platform (UWP) apps have a noble goal."

    Oh, that's what UWP stands for. Thought it was "Ugly Windows Phone app".

  9. BigAndos

    Voice messages on Linked in? Oh dear lord does that mean I'm going to get audio ramblings from recruiters now as well as message spam? This might finally make me delete my LinkedIn account!

    1. Def Silver badge
      Megaphone

      As long as you can delete them without being forced to listen to them first, I don't see there's much of a difference to be honest. :)

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        As long as you can delete them without being forced to listen to them first, I don't see there's much of a difference to be honest

        Actually, I think the audio messages may be an improvement in this respect. As a compulsive reader, I find it difficult to avoid reading at least the beginnings of textual messages on LI.

        (I used to find some interesting content in LI group messages and blog posts, but one of their UI changes made it extremely annoying to read anything on the site. If memory serves, they broke keyboard scrolling by having some idiotic "do you want to post a message?" dialog pop up over the text if you pressed a key. Idiots.)

    2. Barry Rueger Silver badge

      Yes. dear God.

      It is impossible to kill off all the LinkedIn emails - God knows I've tried - but this really pushes things over the edge.

      I have to think that the point is to allow Microsoft to build a reliable and valuable voice recognition database.

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: Yes. dear God.

        "It is impossible to kill off all the LinkedIn emails"

        You don't know the half of it. I deleted my LinkedIn account a year or so ago, and I STILL get regular emails from them.

        1. james_smith

          Re: Yes. dear God.

          I've never had a LinkedIn account, and I still received emails from them - "invites" from people I've never heard of. Now I just block all emails from LinkedIn domains.

    3. JohnFen Silver badge

      "This might finally make me delete my LinkedIn account!"

      You mean the useless social spaminess and datamining of LinkedIn itself wasn't enough?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019