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

Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

roslyn.codeplex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 459 posts

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#241

Post by shmerl »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #230
shmerl wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's good. But that's just the compiler. What about APIs (i.e. .NET)? I don't think Oracle claimed ownership over Java compilers in the example above. It was primarily about Java APIs.

The precedent has already been set that API's aren't patentable... So I think we're good.

From that perspective yes. But MS clearly showed they didn't like that. It was about the attitude in general. If MS want to really open things up, they should formally have an open license for APIs that would protect them from MS patent and copyright threats.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#242

Post by sien »

JohnBooty wrote: post #194
danford wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the only thing apple has going for them is the iPhone, which is arguably a fad. The reason Rolex never goes out of style is because they never change their style, and apple is no Rolex like a lot of people seem to think. People easily forget about all the hype around the iMac g3. Sure, it changed the company, but they still have yet to over take windows. Now Android is out selling the i…

Apple isn't dominating any market. You're obviously going by the number of units sold, not the profit share. And you're not technically wrong. But isn't that a little bit like measuring the number of swings a baseball player takes instead of the number of times he gets a hit? In the PC market Apple is absolutely destroying all comers: 45% of the profit share in 2012. HP, Lenovo, Dell, Acer and Asus combine for the re…

Market share matters.

Apple were doing well by profit share in the PC market in the early 1990s when they were as now a bigger company than MS. But because there were so many more PCs out there software developers and hardware manufacturers targeted MS not Apple and then when Apple machines were poor in the mid to late 1990s Apple almost disappeared.

If Android is, say, 80%+ of the market at some point and it's no longer worth making things for iOS Apple and Apple have a generation or two of stuff that isn't that good Apple could be in the same position as they were in the late 1990s and it's unlikely Jobs will be back again to save them.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#243

Post by vanilla »

I fell that they are doing it because of a growing threat from Linux as a Windows alternative.

With Valve pushing their Debian fork and more gaming support for Linux in the last time, Microsoft wan't to appeal to the Open Source community the reduce the "bashing" which ... which could actually loose some force behind it. Not that it could actually benefit Linux with better Mono support etc.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#244

Post by jongalloway2 »

j_s wrote: post #171

Is this the 2014 edition of the Rotor Project[1], where Microsoft dumped a bunch of code to run .NET on XP/OSX/FreeBSD and then almost nothing happened? Hopefully the choice of a standard license this time will give this release a chance. [1] http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=1412...

I think the big difference is that .NET and Visual Studio will depend on the Roslyn compiler. Rotor was a sample implementation, but nobody at Microsoft (to my knowledge) was shipping an actual product / project that depended on Rotor moving forward. I've talked to leads on the team who are excited about being able to roll out new language features using this new compiler. There's a good, long term business justification for Microsoft to keep working on this after open sourcing it, which I've learned over time is a very good and important thing.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#245

Post by tmzt »

Varcht wrote: post #195
bambam12897 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You honestly think Microsoft it trying to shift to a RedHat-like business plan? That they'll switch to becoming a support provider? I think what RedHat is doing is nice, but it's really not on the same scale to what Microsoft does; not to mention that they essentially have no monopoly/lockin - b/c anyone can start doing what they do (ie. start providing support for CentOS). The synergy of microsoft services is closel…

Put together with this "Parsing Microsoft’s Decision to Cut Windows Fees"[1] It may well be that MS is feeling enough pressure from Android and to a lesser extent linux to give it a go. 1. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/parsing-microsofts-...

Or profiting enough from Android and ChromeOS royalties to see it's a profitable model.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#246

Post by ptx »

csulmone wrote: post #55
tommis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've released it under "MICROSOFT REFERENCE SOURCE LICENSE (MS-RSL)" some time ago, but I'm not sure what the future plan is. You can view and download the whole .NET source here: http://referencesource.microsoft.com/

That is awesome. What about the CLR VM?

If they just give you the cheese, the trap doesn't work.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#248

Post by jkrems »

keypusher wrote: post #229
tormeh wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'd like to see Visual Studio for Linux with support for Java, Scala, Clojure, Haskell and other non-Microsoft technologies. That's my wishlist in this bright new era of Microsoft openness. I don't like Microsoft but Visual Studio is the only IDE I've ever tried that is substantially better than gedit/jedit. The auto-completion (intellisense) is just delightful to use.

Is Visual Studio auto-complete significantly different from IntelliJ or Eclipse? There are many great editors an the continium between gedit and Visual Studio, such as Sublime, hell even vim and emacs have autocomplete plugins.

Microsoft does great work in researching static code analysis, I only remember their auto-complete ten years ago for C++ code and it was miles ahead of anything else. It pops up in just the right moment and it just feels like a genuine "code assistant" instead of just an auto-complete. Unfortunately I don't really trust MS with developing great OSX software (see MS Office for Mac) so I'm not sure I'd want Visual Studio. But if they could pull of a proper port, it would be awesome.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#249

Post by tolmasky »

jamesgeck0 wrote: post #109
tolmasky wrote: post #54

I really hope Unity is able to incorporate this somehow so we can finally get a solid update to C# and .NET.

Unity's version of Mono was pretty old last I checked; if they haven't updated it for new versions of Mono, I'm not getting my hopes up too much for Roslyn. Also, this doesn't include source for a runtime.

They hadn't updated Mono for licensing issues. Hence them hopefully being able to take advantage of this.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#250

Post by CCs »

cwyers wrote: post #68
svas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping there would be an announcement at Build that they had acquired Xamarin, but that didn't happen. All that was mentioned was that they were a partner that they were working with. Still a possibility in the future though. The open sourcing of Roslyn can only mean good things for Xamarin.

Microsoft clearly is involving Xamarin in this announcement -- parts of Xamarin are going into the same dot net Foundation that's in charge of this, and de Icaza was on stage for part of this. It may be best for Microsoft at this point if they support and involve Xamarin without buying it outright, people who want to use Xamarin with MS tooling can take advantage of Visual Studio integration, people who are wary of M…

How this affects the (pretty high) Xamarin prices? https://store.xamarin.com/
Post reply on HN