Yes, I use F# with TorchSharp to do machine learning. My most recent project is a Hearts AI that is quite good. Here are some links:

* https://github.com/brianberns/Hearts

* https://github.com/brianberns/MinGptSharp

* https://github.com/brianberns/ModestGpt

* https://github.com/brianberns/DeepKuhnPoker

This idea comes from a functional pearl called "Power Series, Power Serious" [0], which is well worth reading.

I implemented the same thing myself in F#. [1]

[0]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...

[1]: https://github.com/brianberns/PowerSeries

Huh, there must have been something in the water leading up to this. Also from 1998 is this paper, "Calculus in coinductive form" and neither of these cites the other. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/705675

These are indeed very similar. Thanks for the link!

The math is a bit over my head, but this formulation seems more difficult than the one I'm familiar with. For example, x^2 is represented as 0::0::2 instead of 0::0::1 (because 2! = 2) and x^3 is represented as 0::0::0::6 instead of 0::0::0::1 (because 3! = 6). Is there a benefit to that?

I was introduced to the notion of power series two weeks ago, and now it's seemingly everywhere...

Power series are possibly one of the most powerful tools in analysis.

Power series have been everywhere for 200 years!

I am learning that indeed.

I translated this to F# for my own edification. It's more verbose, but perhaps easier to understand for non-Haskellers.

https://github.com/brianberns/AnnotatedStack

FWIW, you might like this: https://github.com/brianberns/FYampaSynth

That looks right up my alley, thanks for the link!

Did you read the linked paper? They consider this possibility and reject it.

Sure. Did you realize that epistemically they don't have the power to reject explanations? It would certainly be news to Stephan Guyenet if they did have in this case.

Using media statements to sway public opinion is… a totally normal thing for organizations to do.

Exactly. And yet people in this thread are arguing against the idea that the CIA would do it.

To me, F# is the pragmatic functional language with the most appeal, but being on .NET maybe it’s not even niche.

It kind of is, to .NET developers.

Although Microsoft has made it from Microsoft Research into official Visual Studio, it has been mostly an up hill fight to keep it there, while .NET languages group mostly cares about C# and VB, and to certain extent C++/CLI for integration with Windows APIs.

F# when taken into account by management, comes always after those three.

Most of the Visual Studio tooling for C# and VB isn't available to F# projects, you are supposed to do it manually, e.g. GUI designers, EF database to code generation, .NET 5 code generators.

Unless I’m misunderstanding something, the company’s software is already open source (https://github.com/replit), so cloning it is perfectly reasonable.

If there’s any dispute here, I think it would be over the copyright to the cloned code (if it really is a clone), but the article doesn’t mention anything about that, so I suspect it isn’t actually cloned at all.

Just because a company has SOME open source software, probably doesn't mean that all of their software is.

A big one I'd add: Ability to gather requirements from a non-technical user, product owner, or subject-matter expert.

This is also a sign no one hired a technical analysis or business analysis.

Well, you'd want both. You want someone dedicated to that role of business analyst, and then you also want your senior engineers to be able to do it, but just not focus their time on it. The understanding is key to improving their execution (unless you think BAs will provide you a 100% perfect and complete spec?) and helps with the turnaround time, so that not literally every ask to the business owner has to go through your BA. And maybe even most of the questions you'll be able to juts answer on your own, and then the turnaround time is literally zero.

18 out of 1000 = “teeming with scams”?

It’s a real problem, but the headline is sensationalized.

When you're promised no scams and 1.8% of apps are scams (which is way higher if you search for niche things, especially stuff that isn't allowed) then yes that's "teeming with scams."