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

371–380 of 459 posts

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#371

Post by ygra »

weavie wrote: 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.

Sometimes you even have to, because fall-through is illegal in C# except with empty case labels. goto case makes things more explicit.

Although there is no reason why they wouldn't use goto. The oft-cited "goto statement considered harmful" was in a very different context and basically just ranted against using goto when there are control structures that make intent clearer.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#372

Post by 72deluxe »

nightski wrote: post #359
jussij wrote: 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.

How did you get it so cheap? Is it an educational one that has restrictions on releasing applications produced with it?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#373

Post by 72deluxe »

jenscow wrote: post #361
jussij wrote: 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…

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

I am still using VS2010 at work. What was bad about VS2012?

VS2010 does keep me from using C++11 features, but that isn't a massive problem.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#374

Post by 72deluxe »

bad_user wrote: post #370
darksim905 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right about the Mac OS IE version not being the same. It was far better than the Windows one!

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#375

Post by mg74 »

tracker1 wrote: post #325
mg74 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not the filesystem thats the problem, but the terrible partitioned-backslash-ridden namespace. Come on MS, embrace the forward slash already.

I haven't noticed the forward slash not working anywhere I need to use paths, from the command prompt and elsewhere.. it doesn't work for tab completion at a command prompt though. You can always use a bash/cygwin prompt for that if you want.

The forward slash in paths only sort of works but not really. And because you can sort of use forward slash and backslash for paths deliminators you can't escape spaces in path names.

And why did they have to screw up tab completion like that? More like tab cycling. Why does MS always have to be different just for the sake of being different?

MS whole approach to the cli grinds my gears. And Powershell fixes nothing.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#376

Post by 72deluxe »

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…

The auto-complete is truly wonderful. XCode's isn't too bad (but does anyone know how to get it to pop up the parameters in a function, same as VS Ctrl-Shift-Space????) but the real stinker I had to use was Borlands Codegear 2007. That whole think was rubbish and engaged in colossal disk-churning for auto-complete. The linker crashed and the IDE was buggy as anything. A shame.

But VS auto-complete was a breath of fresh air afterwards.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#377

Post by [deleted] »

72deluxe wrote: post #374
bad_user wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right about the Mac OS IE version not being the same. It was far better than the Windows one!

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#378

Post by 72deluxe »

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.

Darwin is open source but is there anyone here who has actually used it or got a bootable usable machine from it? I mean, can you even run X on it successfully? I never could (didn't try very hard mind you).

The release of Darwin isn't a massive thing I don't think.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#379

Post by 72deluxe »

tjl wrote: post #263
sneak wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which lawsuit was that? I would be interested in knowing which patent they violated, and who the patent belonged to.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#380

Post by githulhu »

jenscow wrote: post #361
jussij wrote: 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…

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

Curious, what was so bad about 2012? I could barely even tell the difference when upgrading to 2013, aside from the addition of the nifty Peek Definition feature.
Post reply on HN