41–50 of 230 posts
I would imagine that language like that would be one of the best you could hope for. I hope this language will fit all the bullets. - C# syntactic sugar - As fast as C++ - Does not require .NET - Runs on Windows/Linux/Unix with no problems
This is going to be horribly negative so a bit of context first: I'm a professional C# programmer. I love C#, I think it's a great language. But there's a huge downside: C# only works on Windows. This vastly reduces the number of things you can do with it (yeah, I know about Mono). There's nothing here that suggests that this would have anything other than the same restrictions. So, assuming the language develops int…
C# developer here, also love the language. I completely agree and I only hope that this new thing will be just as good as C# but fully cross-platform. It would be great. >mobile Xamarin is pretty solid, although it costs a lot.
C++ does not perform, is not a managed language, and has nothing to offer. What could he possibly be talking about? I read this as MS once again getting it completely wrong. Seriously C++ solving managed languages performance and memory problems? Physician, HEAL THY SELF.
> C++ does not perform,... You sure seem to be an expert on these things.
I would imagine that language like that would be one of the best you could hope for. I hope this language will fit all the bullets. - C# syntactic sugar - As fast as C++ - Does not require .NET - Runs on Windows/Linux/Unix with no problems
Sounds a lot like D ( http://dlang.org/ )...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but this is Microrust It's completely not at all the same, but still familiar to rust programmers. It's but built for the enterprise with advanced patented technology. The yearly license fee will include responsive customer service.
well, if we only look at the language and the "recent" past then C# is both an Ecma and ISO standard. yes, it's only one example among 1000s of opposite ones but things are changing even in Microsoft, very slowly, with lots of setbacks, but they are. They won't transform MS anytime soon and possibly ever but I see saner pockets emerging.
Oh no wait, for those of us who have actually used these specs (in my case MSRPC/DCE), it's a hopeless mess of blatantly incomplete documentation obviously written by the lowest bidder.
Microsoft haven't changed. They've succeeded in changing their perception only. The company is still predatory sales focused and always will be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C# developer here, also love the language. I completely agree and I only hope that this new thing will be just as good as C# but fully cross-platform. It would be great. >mobile Xamarin is pretty solid, although it costs a lot.
Project Rotor will be left in the history books as the "Java killer that was never unleashed". I remember using C# back in 2005 and just thinking how far ahead of everything it was. But it was never allowed to leave the shackles of MS.
I had it building on FreeBSD back then!
They did the right thing for them but not the community. Isolation and ecosystem ate tightly controlled at Microsoft and always have been. It's how devdiv remain scarily profitable.
I would imagine that language like that would be one of the best you could hope for. I hope this language will fit all the bullets. - C# syntactic sugar - As fast as C++ - Does not require .NET - Runs on Windows/Linux/Unix with no problems
Judging by their track record, I completely trust the geniuses at Microsoft to solve another non-existent problem /s.
The only really bad technical decision that they have taken is the broken security model of user accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how languages in the .net ecosystem have worked in the past. C# is an open, ecma standard, as is the specification of the common language infrastructure (the VM/byte-code design for running .net programs). And MS publishes the language specifications for VB and F#. That's why it's possible to run .net code on linux without ever paying MS. There's even an open source F# compiler. Moreover, the .net compiler…
The idea that MS is out to envelope developers by enticing them into a language that requires massive cash outlays or *ongoing licensing fees* is not supported by reality. ... The only requirement being that they run on a Windows OS Mhm. Yes, I suppose you can run some C# on a non-windows machine, but it'll have bugs, break, some libraries won't be supported and there's no tooling support. ...but don't worry, you can…
C# runs great on 90% of desktop computers because Microsoft has had a 20 year desktop monopoly. It's is a walled garden until we can easily move code to other platforms and have it perform at the same level.
This is going to be horribly negative so a bit of context first: I'm a professional C# programmer. I love C#, I think it's a great language. But there's a huge downside: C# only works on Windows. This vastly reduces the number of things you can do with it (yeah, I know about Mono). There's nothing here that suggests that this would have anything other than the same restrictions. So, assuming the language develops int…
"Finally, you might wonder, “Why not base it on C++?” As we’ve progressed, I do have to admit that I often wonder whether we should have started with C++, and worked backwards to carve out a “safe subset” of the language."
...
"I do expect to take our learnings and explore this avenue at some point, largely for two reasons: (1) it will ease portability for a larger number of developers (there’s a lot more C++ on Earth than C#), and (2) I dream of standardizing the ideas, so that the OSS community also does not need to make the difficult “safe/productive vs. performant” decision."
"But for the initial project goals, I am happy to have begun with C#, not the least reason for which is the rich .NET frameworks that we could use as a blueprint (noting that they needed to change pretty heavily to satisfy our goals)."
[1]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ajoedu...