Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

isdotnetopen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 500 posts

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#431

Post by unclad5968 »

wutwutwutwut wrote: post #425
unclad5968 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty confused how anyone can be around for the "dotnet watch" debacle and come out the other side thinking "this is the most open project I've ever participated in"

Haha. I would guess that >95% of NET developers have no idea what you are even talking about. This really seems like the recurring bubble where posters on HN somehow things that a large majority of the industry is hitting F5 on HN while they are instead busy doing actual work.

You're probably right. I'm not a developer, just a tech nerd, so it's a mistake to assume others would care about minutia.

Regardless, I think it is still fair to say that if any other language platform was withholding features like a debugger, nobody would consider those platforms particularly open.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#432

Post by zamalek »

tinco wrote: post #380
csmpltn wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "You want to know what's better than having actual MS developers interact with your issue on GH? Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go." .NET isn't your average hobby project - it's used everywhere. It's imperative that changes go through the proper due process here. It takes time to prepare design documents and review them, discuss the changes…

I'd be very surprised if Microsoft's development process is more thorough than that of Rust or even Rails. These are not your average hobby projects, it is imperative that changes go through the proper due process there. It takes time to prepare design documents and review them, discuss the changes and different alternatives, review the code, implement the changes, test them properly, and you can participate in all t…

Having submitted a somewhat trivial PR (System.HashCode), they really put you through the ringer. It took almost 3 weeks of constant (and valuable) feedback for the PR to move into a state that they liked.

All of this about dotnet not accepting PRs is unadulterated "Micro$uck FUD". The other critiques are valid, but not this one, not by a mile, it is complete bullshit.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#433

Post by loeg »

Pathogen-David wrote: post #375
tinco wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are unaware of how much better it is with the other ecosystems. Probably all of them except the ones controlled by Apple, Oracle and IBM. You want to know what's better than having actual MS developers interact with your issue on GH? Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go. That's not just a dream, that's the standard way of operating for most l…

You can do this in the .NET ecosystem too, they accept pull requests from the community regularly. I have a few merged PRs in Roslyn, one in particular I made because I knew it didn't affect very many developers and would have trouble getting prioritized. Also personally the ideal situation for me is for someone who is getting paid to fix the issue to go fix it without me having to get my hands dirty.

.NET PRs sit unmerged for years if they're not a priority for MSFT. I'm glad it works well sometimes and that MSFT seems to care about .NET on Linux, but it's not that open.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#434

Post by supinecat »

bayindirh wrote: post #73
kelnos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, agreed. Didn't realize how much Canonical was helping with WSL, though it of course makes sense that they're doing so, unfortunately. > De Icasa is not a saint either by pushing Mono on GNOME and Linux Eh, I think interoperability is good, and reverse-engineering Windows frameworks/technology has a long history in the open-source world (WINE & Samba being two prominent examples). I was disappointed when they sol…

> Didn't realize how much Canonical was helping with WSL, though it of course makes sense that they're doing so, unfortunately. Eh, they have a dedicated team for enabling WSL/Ubuntu desktop in Canonical. They're fueling the effort. > Eh, I think interoperability is good, and reverse-engineering Windows frameworks/technology has a long history in the open-source world (WINE & Samba being two prominent examples). IIRC…

Yeah you don’t remember correctly at all.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#435

Post by SauciestGNU »

csmpltn wrote: post #369
tinco wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are unaware of how much better it is with the other ecosystems. Probably all of them except the ones controlled by Apple, Oracle and IBM. You want to know what's better than having actual MS developers interact with your issue on GH? Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go. That's not just a dream, that's the standard way of operating for most l…

> "You want to know what's better than having actual MS developers interact with your issue on GH? Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go." .NET isn't your average hobby project - it's used everywhere. It's imperative that changes go through the proper due process here. It takes time to prepare design documents and review them, discuss the changes…

Ruby and Rust and Rails aren't exactly hobby projects either. Mission critical software exists that uses those as well. Ultimately it's on the development and deployment teams to pin a version of the runtime for actual consistency in environment.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#436

Post by corrral »

actionfromafar wrote: post #169
makeitdouble wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public companies are inherently evil by default The extremism of this positon makes it hard to swallow the message. You might as well be right, but accepting it at face value would be a huge cognitive dissonance for many people working in public companies. Basically, the “are we the baddies ?” answer would be “yes” for a huge chunk of us, and I don’t think that’s how we see it personally. Companies have to make mon…

Funny, I don't see any good from IKEA when you look at the greater picture. More waste, un-accounted for externalities all over the board (labour laws, environment exploitation), extremely well-honed organisation designed to evade taxes through "charities".

Seen the kind of furniture you can get in the same price range as IKEA?

It's usually most or all of: hideous; difficult to assemble (why people complain about IKEA when basically every other player in their market is far worse, I do not understand); worse-made than IKEA furniture; still, somehow, more expensive than the IKEA equivalent.

IKEA's about the best option out there for people who don't have a lot of money and also would rather not furnish their home with cheap antiques from the 1920s (go much newer, or much older, and it starts getting expensive), having to do a lot of DIY re-upholstering in the process if they want anything with cloth on it.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#437

Post by corrral »

com2kid wrote: post #343
actionfromafar wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effects of IKEA must be very different depending on where in the world they were introduced, and when. If your country (cough-cough USA) had already descended into the "crap products globalisation stage" before IKEA came along, it will feel like a net positive. If your country (cough-cough Sweden) got IKEA before that stage, I would say, yes, IKEA displaced quality furniture. I'd say the overall problem is un-acc…

Ikea also sells nice, solid wood, furniture. And they typically do so at a price that is much more affordable than their competitors. If you want to go into Ikea and just buy long lasting solid wood products, go ahead! Indeed I'd argue Ikea has made new solid wood furniture more accessible, heck sometimes new Ikea wood furniture is cheaper than consignment store wood furniture!

> Ikea also sells nice, solid wood, furniture. And they typically do so at a price that is much more affordable than their competitors.

I've seen (and own) some solid wood furniture from IKEA. I'm usually an IKEA defender (see another post I just made on this thread).

I would not describe their solid wood furniture as "nice". Given the way they tend to assemble even small members from multiple small scraps of wood glued together rather than single pieces, I think calling them "solid" is even a bit of a stretch, at least in some cases. They're also made out of fairly soft wood, usually, and barely finished, if at all.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#438

Post by WorldMaker »

jsmeaton wrote: post #133
EdwardDiego wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't MS just contribute to the existing one, instead of writing its own from scratch?

The existing one was an open source Microsoft project. Then they built a new closed-source version as a replacement. To be fair, pylance is orders of magnitude better with regards to performance. But I just don’t get what the reasoning was to make pylance closed source. It’s baffling.

My understanding is that pylance bundles in several ML models that back a lot of its performance increases over pyright and it is the ML models and closed-source data science that caused the LSP closure.

I think data science also is best when it itself is open/open-source, and peer reviewed.

I can understand why Microsoft wants to make that a moat to protect expensive data science and ML research boundaries and it doesn't seem that baffling to me if that is indeed the reason why they closed source pylance, even as I question if it was the best choice.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#440

Post by thaneross »

Conan_Kudo wrote: post #401
mattgreenrocks wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been; how gloriously different are the saints." - C.S. Lewis I still recall people fawning over how Google was going to be "different" in 2006, and how it was going to save us from Microsoft. Nowadays, they are essentially what MS was in its' heyday. Blind faith in corporations is not the way forward. I've always understood the hacker ethos to have str…

Well, this site isn't about hackers in the classical sense. It's about people working on building businesses and startups. The URL tells you everything: "news.ycombinator.com". This is, first and foremost, about the business, not the people or the technology.

The dichotomy is pretty stark sometimes on this site between the excellent conversations about technology and the SV capitalists musing about how to get richer.
Post reply on HN