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

261–270 of 459 posts

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#261

Post by tjl »

Delmania wrote: post #180
leoc wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, here we are then. This now officially the standard play for formerly-dominating computer-platform firms who have fallen on hard times: having before been proudly hard-nosed and proprietary, publicly see the light and present a new image as a new, kinder, gentler company which totally gets it about openness. Former famous examples: IBM under Lou Gerstner (we love Linux and open platforms!), Apple after the NeXT…

Subtle difference: Apple and IBM have made use of free software such as FreeBSD, CUPS, Webkit, etc. Microsoft here is taking core technology and releasing it as free.

Apple has made Darwin open source. That, WebKit, and LLVM are pretty core technologies. A good portion of their technology is open. So, it's not just using free software and not giving back.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#262

Post by Moto7451 »

platz wrote: post #116
Xdes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like Sinatra then check out Nancy.

For a compiled platform, nancy seems pretty slow http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/

http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r8&hw=i7...

But not much behind ASP.net.

http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r8&hw=i7...

And quite a bit ahead of Sinatra

http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r8&hw=i7...

Then again, so's Perl. The joys of implementation differences.

I find Nancy a lot easier to develop with than ASP.net. You do pay for the expressiveness however.

At work I'm deploying a Nancy based project to parse/process documents into structured data using a 3rd party vendor's SOAP service. There were some unpleasant compatibility issues with the SOAP service and our Perl server's SOAP client and zero logging so I took the service's source code (so glad the Vendor provided it) and replaced the WebService portion of it with a thin Nancy controller to route the calls and return JSON. Since most of the processing time is spent chewing on the files Nancy's overhead isn't an issue and Nancy made it dead simple to code.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#263

Post by tjl »

sneak wrote: post #214
leoc wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, here we are then. This now officially the standard play for formerly-dominating computer-platform firms who have fallen on hard times: having before been proudly hard-nosed and proprietary, publicly see the light and present a new image as a new, kinder, gentler company which totally gets it about openness. Former famous examples: IBM under Lou Gerstner (we love Linux and open platforms!), Apple after the NeXT…

> Apple after the NeXT acquisition but before the iPhone (look how expandable our new PowerMacs are; on the software side, we're now an open-systems-loving Unix vendor, and we'll even open-source our kernel!) Remember that time (well within the iOS era) that Apple claimed that FaceTime would be an open standard for interoperability?

It's my understanding that the original plan for how FaceTime worked was derailed thanks to Apple losing a patent lawsuit.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#264

Post by tjl »

scholia wrote: post #222
MagerValp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's particularly fair to lump Apple with the rest since 14 years later [1] the core OS is still open source [2], and they're actively working on several high profile open source projects (e.g. Webkit, CUPS, and clang). They're not exactly irrelevant either. [1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/04/05Apple-Releases-Dar... [2] http://opensource.apple.com/

Apple took advantage of things that were already open source. How many innovative, profitable programs has it developed itself and then made open source? The fact that the core OS is still open source doesn't actually mean much when there's a huge layer of proprietary code on top, does it?

The Darwin Streaming Server for one. There's also the Apple Lossless Codec. Plus, they're heavily involved in work on LLVM and have been for quite some time. Lastly, There's Grand Central Dispatch (libdispatch). Plus, WebKit is quite far from it's KHTML roots.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#265

Post by scg »

jkrems wrote: post #248
keypusher wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Stud…

MS Office for Mac is pretty well done IMHO

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#266

Post by leoc »

bbarn wrote: post #215
leoc wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, here we are then. This now officially the standard play for formerly-dominating computer-platform firms who have fallen on hard times: having before been proudly hard-nosed and proprietary, publicly see the light and present a new image as a new, kinder, gentler company which totally gets it about openness. Former famous examples: IBM under Lou Gerstner (we love Linux and open platforms!), Apple after the NeXT…

I'm sure I'm guilty of some logical fallacy or another here, but isn't responding to customer demand one of the core things espoused by the startup community? A big company does exactly what we're all saying is good for companies to do and everyone is up in arms with "TOO LATE M$" and the like (apologies for paraphrasing, and this is directed at several comments, not just this one). This is the kind of thing we WANT…

Well, I certainly can't speak for the startup community, as I'm more strongly affiliated with the screwup community myself. ;) But no, I'm certainly not dismissing MS's new direction: it seems to be fairly genuine, and (some lingering patent/EEE concerns aside) good news, just as IBM's support (in various ways) for Linux or Sun's eventual open-sourcing of Java were good news. I'm all in favour of a kinder and gentler MS (as far as it goes and as long as it lasts). And I'm certainly not singling them out either, as the list of comparisons shows.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#267

Post by tjl »

emn13 wrote: post #226
leoc wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, although I could pick nits about the significance of each of these (Webkit being open source is somewhat less significant that it appears since web browsers nowadays are de facto somewhat unforkable; the open-sourcing of clang was partly or mainly an attack on the GPL). But while Apple's continued doing many of those things (and done some similar things like GCD), they've also started doing other things they wer…

Not to mention the fact that webkit itself is a fork of khtml - so while apple's contributions are clearly valuable, it's quite a different story. If apple had not open sourced webkit, given its origins, that would have been resoundingly bad PR at the time. Apple built on oss foundations, and most of what they've open sourced is simply a result of them not closing forks of once open projects, which is very valuable,…

Darwin was based on NeXT, which as far as I can recall, wasn't open source before Apple opened it. While a number of the userland tools were (and are) open source, I don't recall the kernel being open.

There's also things like the streaming server which as far as I can tell was strictly an Apple project. I think libdispatch was also strictly an Apple project.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#268

Post by pessimizer »

tjl wrote: post #261
Delmania wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subtle difference: Apple and IBM have made use of free software such as FreeBSD, CUPS, Webkit, etc. Microsoft here is taking core technology and releasing it as free.

Apple has made Darwin open source. That, WebKit, and LLVM are pretty core technologies. A good portion of their technology is open. So, it's not just using free software and not giving back.

Isn't WebKit a fork of GPLv2 code?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#269

Post by elwell »

Commit history only goes back to Mar 18 [0]. Presumably, to hide code that needed to be cleaned up before the release. Would've been interesting to see the full history, mistakes and all; a full view of their dev process.

[0] - http://roslyn.codeplex.com/SourceControl/list/changesets?pag...

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#270

Post by NolF »

jkrems wrote: post #248
keypusher wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Stud…

Excel for Mac doesn't have the "Evaluate Formula" function and the Name Manager is crippled... (to name a few issues) Makes it really hard to do complex and robust development.
Post reply on HN