Yup, I even wrote a framework to convert F# to javascript which allowed me to create a new (really powerful) validation provider for MVC. Sadly I haven't had a real world project that fit it well, so it's kind of gone by the wayside.
It's fairly straight forward to use with MVC, though it's less than ideal. You basically need to have a C# MVC project that referneces your F# projects (these would contain your controllers etc.)
It can be used with MVC, but the problem is MVC is still C# centric - as in the scaffolding bits that it generates are C# (or VB).
There's also the question of Razor supporting F#, which is not yet there. I remember somebody spiking some code for that, not sure if it's usable.
You can still write all your controllers in F#; but if your front-end is C#(razor), and if your data access is in L2S or EF, then F# feels like added baggage. Still could be useful in some occasions.
Ideally build some of your main functionality as an extensions. You'll quickly discover pain points if you have to live with the same API and contexts as a 3rd party. I just recently rewrote TaffyDB to a version allowing extensions and a key goal was to build most if not all of the public default methods as extensions.
Thanks for the suggestion. The system is already mostly module-ized with a few glaring exceptions that need to be fixed.
My big problem is how do I let customers modify the modules themselves, without actually modifying the module? E.g. I'd like to some how give them the ability to, say, add company specific fields to the pre-existing User module and database, without actually modifying the User module source. I'm not sure how to handle the database.
This is the goal for me so future updates can be seamless, no matter how extensively customized their actual version of the application is.
My wife and I give. I think it is one of the most positive things you can do. We give to several faith-connected charities, children's hospitals, etc. My new "favorite" charity is charitywater.org. They have a lot of good things going for it not the least of which is that they are about as close as it comes to a "startup" charity in terms of innovation, marketing, etc.
JSConf was a blast.I walked away with the feeling that JavaScript was going somewhere beyond the web. With Canvas, Server Side, DBs, etc it feels like JavaScript is slowly and irresistibly going to take over everything.
What browser are you using that the editor stopped working? You can do any subject you want, in fact I may even add it to the list. I added the box on the left to give the site some initial focus.
Ah, I see -- I misunderstood the "let me know". I got the impression that new subjects had to go through you.
My other comments stand, though. You need an info/UI designer to go over the site, and you need to improve the value prop to contributors. There are lots of sites in similar areas -- three that come to mind are squidoo, mahalo, and twine.
Yeah, the reason "why" is something I've struggled to communicate. The core idea is that if you personally are a power web user and are interested in a topic (let's say apple products) than you probably filter through a lot of feeds, videos, news stories, social links, etc. Much of that content isn't worth paying attention to, but some of it is gold. If you could find the apple "gold" and put it on one page it would be a very valuable and useful page. Consider the fact that any time an Apple story breaks all the major tech blogs fill up with posts and commentary. Little of that commentary is original or useful, but some of it is. If you regularly filter the Apple news feeds to find the good stuff then creating a page to highlight this information would be very useful to folks who don't want to do the same filtering.
I agree with that statement, but isn't that what social news sites like this one are for? A group of people with common interest does the filtering for you (also kinda what Squidoo is for if I've got them right).
If I were you, I'd keep refining your idea. I don't personally don't think you've hit the sweet-spot yet.
Being degree free myself (and knowing others in the same boat) let me put it this way: with four years of school you may be able to start at $50K a year. With a good head and practice you may be able to get a job at 20 for $50K. With 6 years of school you may be able to start at $60-80. Again, with practice, a good head, and a good company you can be in that range by the time the schooled person is ready for the work force and you don't have the debt.
By and large programmers solve problems. If you can solve problems well enough they'll pay you. They may pay you more when they see that magical degree on your resume, but that doesn't mean you can solve their problem any better than the person without a degree. Likewise if by the time you are 30-35 you can be at or near 6 figures the actual pay difference you could earn matters less and less.
There is a lot of value in a formal education in computer science or software engineering. So much so that I am tempted to go and attempt to get a degree in one or the other. But it isn't so I can work in the field. There are so many lazy people that if you just show up and dig ditches you'll find work and become important to the company. If you think a degree (or even the ability to do things text-book right) means anything to a firm that just needs an apt to store customer contacts than you are fooling yourself. I doubt I could ever work at Google, but I really don't care that much about missing out on that rat race.
JavaScript really isn't that bad. It is different to be sure and lost when it comes to OO. But like "The Good Parts" book explains, JavaScript really isn't about OO. Or strong typing. It doesn't need to be. It would be nice if the certain features worked correctly and it worked the same in all browsers, but I'd rather have less features and not more. With closure and first class functions you can get most of what you need once you learn a basic model for building apps.
I feel like this is excuse making. It's not like changing javascript is outside of our capabilities.
Scheme is really similar to JavaScript in that it is an extremely basic set of core functionality, but they've gone to great lengths to make the experience of using it consistent. Part of the problem is that most of schemes are written in scheme, but most javascripts are not written mostly in JavaScript. That means there is no style guide implicit in the source code. If a bunch of code just picked an object instantiation method, then there would be no problem.
