F# 6 doc revamp

[dsyme]

A set of updates for F# 6. WIP, no need to review yet

• Add docs for task expressions
• Move "Introduction to Functional Programming" to be a tutorial and change order in learning sequence
• Simplify language in various places, e.g. "Asynchronous and Concurrent Programming" is not needed
• Use "Async expressions" instead of "Asynchronous workflows" systematically
• Remove Newtonsoft.Json
• Remove Visual F# branding
• Add information on entry points and console apps

cc @KathleenDollard

[dsyme]

This is ready for review.

[lobrien]

Just some style notes.

[fsoikin]

Just curious: why is it that "we want less emphasis on Functional Programming"?

[smoothdeveloper]

Looks good, I was wondering about FSharpWorks versus FSharpSample, unless @tpetricek objects.

For me "FSharpWorks" in a sample documentation implies that it may "not work" (which is a bit irrational, I know...), while a sample is just a sample (which just dotnet build "works").

@fsoikin: FP is still homonymous for "hard to hire" for people deciding on both tech stack & hiring/HR staffing on their projects; while F# aims to be the VB of FP kind of (under a certain perspective, if that offends some).

[dsyme]

Looks good, I was wondering about FSharpWorks versus FSharpSample, unless @tpetricek objects.

Thanks, good suggestion

Just curious: why is it that "we want less emphasis on Functional Programming"?

In docs and messaging we've made the decision to focus on "F# programming" first and foremost, including its qualities, (succinct, robust, performant). We then let the various modes of use of F# emerge from that - "functional" being one of them. Thus the learning sequence is

Learn basic programming --> Learn techniques, concepts and paradigms relevant to your tasks

rather than

Learn the functional paradigm --> Learn basic programming

[dsyme]

This is ready // cc @gewarren @KathleenDollard

[gewarren]

I left some grammar suggestions - please batch them. Thanks for updating the docs!