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

421–430 of 459 posts

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#421

Post by 72deluxe »

dTal wrote: post #409
orkoden wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several independent distributions of Darwin. The current one is Pure Darwin. http://www.puredarwin.org

There have been several independent ones because they all fail. I don't fully understand the dynamics here, but the inability of the community to create a usefully working OS out of all that open code for over a decade speaks volumes.

I wonder if it is because it never gained enough intertia when Macs are good enough with the Mach kernel etc.? I wonder why the varieties of Darwin didn't catch on?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#422

Post by V-2 »

jussij wrote: post #312
lugg wrote: 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…

Well, that's not making money off C# and .NET directly - it's IDE sales. Btw, I worked on VS Express (in a commercial environment) for a long time.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#423

Post by 72deluxe »

bad_user wrote: post #388
72deluxe wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It may have been, but it was dropped on the floor, which happened after Mac OS was using it as the default browser as part of their 1997 deal with Microsoft, to be replaced with Safari in 2003 - pretty late IMHO. This year's technical excellence can be next year's pain in the ass, as seen with IExplorer. And I don't understand why they haven't open-sourced IExplorer yet.

Shame it was dropped. I am not sure many people would use it now on Mac, given its less than stellar reputation on Windows (although possibly this reputation only exists in nerdy circles and not with the average "normal" computer user).

Safari has always been mostly OK on the Mac (although I tend to use Chromium instead) but on the iPad it crashes a lot for me.

It always makes me laugh the shouts of "NOO!!!" and general disbelief at the Mac conference when IE was announced. The sky was falling. It fell and became glossy and shiny and Apple lives.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#424

Post by jimmaswell »

Pxtl wrote: post #19

As a C# developer who genuinely likes the C# language (although I loathe vast swaths of the .NET framework libs) I'm actually super-excited about this. C# is a great language, and I hope to see it flourish outside of the MS walled garden. Miguel de Icaza does what he can with Mono, but it can be so much more.

What's wrong with the libs?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#425

Post by fauigerzigerk »

testrun wrote: post #300
coldtea wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is Microsoft we're talking about - they have a track record of profound fuckery. Any examples? Besides "bundling IE with the OS and pressuring some OEM vendors back in the nineties"?

1. Internet Explorer standard compliance : Internet Explorer has introduced an array of proprietary extensions to many of the standards, including HTML, CSS, and the DOM. This has resulted in a number of web pages that appear broken in standards-compliant web browsers and has introduced the need for a "quirks mode" to allow for rendering improper elements meant for Internet Explorer in these other browsers. [ http://…

>Internet Explorer has introduced an array of proprietary extensions

You mean things like XMLHTTPRequest?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#426

Post by chadzawistowski »

githulhu wrote: post #380
jenscow wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't call 2012 terrible, but 2013 seemed a marked improvement to me. Little features and enhancements were sprinkled all over the place. Better Blend functionality is one enhancement I've noticed.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#427

Post by jevinskie »

Locke1689 wrote: post #282
jevinskie wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you ask around the office and find out some of the details about the C# bootstrap process? I would be fascinated to know what language the non-C# compiler was written in and also how long they used/improved the non-C# compiler until they switched to the C# compiler. This source release is so cool!

Oh, the old compiler is just the currently shipping compiler (i.e., the one in a clean install of VS 2013). We've been using and maintaining it since the beginning. It's written in C++, so we refer to it as the "native compiler." We only stopped bootstrapping using the native compiler about, oh, 6 months ago, since that was when we decided to take a dependency on new language features. The next VS will be the first V…

Oh I see, I didn't realize the native compiler was being used the whole time. Thank you for the insight!

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#428

Post by yonilevy »

72deluxe wrote: post #376
jkrems wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fre…

If you haven't already - try AppCode out, it's superior to XCode in so many ways, and the functionality you've asked for is there (Ctrl+Shift+P).

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#429

Post by jurre »

yonilevy wrote: post #428
72deluxe wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fre…

If you haven't already - try AppCode out, it's superior to XCode in so many ways, and the functionality you've asked for is there (Ctrl+Shift+P).

I really want to like AppCode but I just can't deal with the non-native java UI

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#430

Post by Shamanmuni »

eitland wrote: post #368
Shamanmuni wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you. I think I understand what you say but I simply disagree. einhverfr worked at Microsoft but it's fallacious to think that his view can't be naive because of that.

For me copyleft without assignment is the safer choice, the others depend on future goodwill or a view of the market self-regulating which I don't see happening with such a big gorilla. After the clarification about assignment, I don't see how it's misleading or wrong in any way. If copyleft licenses can be abused in certain situations it doesn't mean non-copyleft ones can't or are the better option here.

I'm interested but worried about the long term viability of this free compiler. I don't want to depend on Microsoft getting the value of FOSS or not. They can give guarantees today that even if they change their mind tomorrow they can't go back in this decision.

I know copyleft licenses can be a pain and that they have problems on their own. I use GPL and LGPL software daily, so I know it. But those issues are orthogonal to the one I'm talking about here (the guaranteed free access to future versions to the community).

And sorry but unless we are talking about another software giant, there's simply no way Microsoft could feel threatened about a third party version of the compiler which works on their framework which is used by their IDE on their OS. They either don't mind what you are doing, will replicate it easily or if everything else fails will keep you away from their framework or IDE.

But I'll shut up as my opinions are continously downvoted by some who can't be bothered to explain even why. I saw some perfectly reasonable comments by einhverfr downvoted too, so it's not just me. I feel HN is becoming toxic. Thanks anyway for the response.

Post reply on HN