Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

roslyn.codeplex.com

361–370 of 459 posts

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#361
post #312
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why they would. This has been an obvious move for a long time, keeping it closed never really made any sense to me. They gained nothing from .Net being closed except hate and utter avoidance from people like me (vocal early adopters.) MS doesn't really make money off C# or .Net directly, they make money off the windows licenses you need to run the resulting code. Open C#/.Net = stronger, longer lasting co…

> MS doesn't really make money off C# or .Net directly, they make money off the windows licenses you need to run the resulting code. On this page: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/02/microsoft-updates-visual-st... There is this quote: Microsoft also today announced that Visual Studio 2013 has sold over 3.7 million copies since its release less than five months ago. That makes it the fastest-selling release of Visual Stu…

Impressive numbers.

VS2012 was shockingly bad. VS2010 users who dodged it were now 2 releases behind.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#363
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly did you get that out of an Apache 2 license? http://roslyn.codeplex.com/license

Well obviously you can eventually run the code on any platform that supports the CLR. At present only Windows and Azure support the CLR but the rest of the world has to depend on Mono. I suspect that Microsoft is trying to fight their way into the Server space where Linux installations are prevalent by offering services via Azure. So, for example, you have an extensive Linux environment running critical back-end serv…

> Well obviously you can eventually run the code on any platform that supports the CLR. At present only Windows and Azure support the CLR but the rest of the world has to depend on Mono.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The roslyn compiler can generate code that can be run on the Mono VM. It was even demonstrated by Miguel on stage.

You'd also need something to run the roslyn compiler on linux, and that again would be mono.

Visual Studio will be using the roslyn compiler in the next version also.

Azure doesn't really have anything to do with this. It's an open source compiler that can run on the .NET VM or the Mono VM, and generate output for either.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#365
post #355

Interesting to see that they don't shy away from using goto in their code. http://roslyn.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#Src/Compiler... Something I've just learned from looking at the code is you can jump between cases in a switch statement : switch (a) { case '1': ... case '2': goto case '1'; } Never realised you could do that.

You can even jump back from a catch or finally handler to the try block ;) At least in MSIL.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#367
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MS doesn't really make money off C# or .Net directly, they make money off the windows licenses you need to run the resulting code. On this page: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/02/microsoft-updates-visual-st... There is this quote: Microsoft also today announced that Visual Studio 2013 has sold over 3.7 million copies since its release less than five months ago. That makes it the fastest-selling release of Visual Stu…

I payed $99 for VS2013 Professional, as did many others. Which is probably a key factor in why it is the fastest selling release.

$499 is pretty good value over a year as well I found!

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Non-copyleft licenses can easily align with the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. What? I would think if anything giving everyone else a crippled license while retaining copyright etc yourself that would be an even bigger setup for a EEE. Remember, MS can do w h a t e v e r they want with that code anyway it is not lke they'd be bound by a copyleft on their own code. (Unless they also started accepting patche…

Well, I was surely thinking about the option without copyright assignment. Everybody giving assignment to Microsoft? Yeah, that's a bigger and much more obvious trap. I don't understand what was so upsetting about my previous comment thatgot so many downvotes. Microsoft has a history of being hostile to FOSS. I will agree that they have changed their attitude when they make a serious effort to assure us that there ar…

> I don't understand what was so upsetting about my previous comment thatgot so many downvotes.

Didn't downvote but I think the ones who did did so because they found your comment misleading. I happen to agree with them but chose to explain the reasoning behind it instead of downvoting.

Read einhverfr's comment again, espescially the "the less restrictions on the code f r o m a big vendor, the better.".

See, some of us has had to work within and around various funny and not-so-funny licenses for years. Both commercial but open source as well..

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There's a reason why more restrictive licenses are more conducive to dual licensing models than less restrictive ones. A non-copyleft license effectively means that Microsoft, should they try EEE, has to compete not only with free as in beer and free as in freedom, they also have to compete with all the closed source competition they are subsidizing in this effort. If you believe that more competition is goo…

Copyleft licenses are more conductive to dual licensing because they give you no other choice if you want to sell a closed source premium version. That's the only reason. And for that to work you have to get copyright assignment. I think your view is pretty naive. They develop the platform and own the IDE that's synonymous with it. They can keep any other compiler off the IDE if they want that, you would be competing…

> I think your view is pretty naive.

Did you take a quick look at his comment history before posting this statement?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents Continue here if you feel extraordinarily ambitious: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720... (Comes vs. Microsoft)

Damn, give it a break those Halloween Documents were over 10 years ago. The pricing thing is one bit, Microsoft hasn't really been too shy about that, but neither has Intel. The whole bundling of IE - how else did you expect someone to browse the web? I don't get it. People don't want IE in Windows yet can never give an answer of how people will get anything else. Then Microsoft has to give people choice. Such a voca…

10 years ago Microsoft was unlike any other big company because of their stronghold on personal computing - being able to use their monopoly on one market to crush their competition in other markets and they did so repeatedly. Startup founders for example always had to take into account the "Microsoft problem".

I don't blame them for bundling IE in Windows, not bundling a browser would be foolish and you can say that Microsoft bundling IExplorer in Windows is what made the web so ubiquitous - I blame them for (1) not making IE cross-platform, which meant that alternatives like, Mac OS, Linux, OS/2 suffered for years because the web was optimized for IE - actually IExplorer was released for Mac OS but it wasn't the same, which made the problem worse as it stopped alternatives for awhile, (2) promoting Windows-only technologies like ActiveX, still in use by many online government services in many countries and (3) after they crushed Netscape with IExplorer 5, which was really good technically speaking, they completely halted the development of IExplorer and of the web in general. IExplorer 6 was a cosmetic release, after which the team was dissolved, many of the members ending up working on Silverlight and other such bullshit. Not mentioning web standards here because the web standards were whatever IExplorer was doing, 10 years ago.

In so far as forgiveness for mistakes that happened 10 years ago - dude, many of us don't have a short memory and many of us don't forgive so easily, not when we aren't seeing signs that a company changed. I'm happy for these recent announcements - it seems that there is interest amongst the upper management to change things, now that Ballmer is gone. And Roslyn (with F# before it) - are the first projects of any significance that they are open-sourcing and F# is finally accepting contributions from third-parties.

But lo and behold - Microsoft is choking Android with patents infringement threats, because obviously, when you can't innovate, you can always litigate, especially when you have a war chest that was built starting in the early eighties. I don't hate patent trolls as much as I hate big companies that are becoming obsolete and with stuffed legal departments that sit on their asses all day thinking of how to "monetize" their bullshit IP, that was built on top of prior art in a time when software patents weren't the norm mind you.

So I'll forgive Microsoft the day they stop threatening and litigating and strong-arm their way into new markets. And don't think that I'm not seeing what Google and Apple are doing. Neither of them resemble the companies I fell in love with years ago. And they should pay attention to Microsoft, as public trust once lost is very hard to regain.

Post reply on HN