"Oh, shit", said Oracle.
Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
301–310 of 937 posts
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#302Microsoft had designed .NET to be independent of platforms. But the strategy advices they got were mostly wrong; so they did not release it for other platforms. Open Source alternatives existed (Mono) but due to unavailability of committed support enterprises did not endorse it. Now there is very little hope that the *NIX users will now use .NET languages.
It was a great platform though. I was impressed by the it when I first went to Teched in year 2002.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Scala, there are just too many ways to do things. It's optimized for flexibility and easy writability. C# on the other hand may be a little more verbose, but at least everyone can read everyone elses code.
Funny, I find c# much harder to read. Its almost as if it is easy to understand code for languages you know well, and harder to understand code for languages you don't.
You find C# harder than this?
trait SeqLike[+A, +Repr] extends Any with IterableLike[A, Repr] with GenSeqLike[A, Repr] with Parallelizable[A, ParSeq[A]] { self =>
or
def :+[B >: A, That](elem: B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd pin more of this on Scott Guthrie and Scott Hanselman, really. They have been championing this kind of behavior for years within MS.
But it's Nadela who allowed that vision to move forward.
A vision this large cannot move forward without buy-in from key executives, and it is unlikely for the execution to take 9-months. Therefore, like other comments have postulated, the work had to have begun long before Nadella took over as CEO.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this announcement was made under Ballmer. How many of you would trust this announcement/take it at face value? Even going by this thread, there is a deep distrust of Microsoft's moves, and that is despite all the positive press that Satya has received for creating a more "open" Microsoft.
IMO, the biggest change that Satya's moves have resulted in is a change in the "perception" of Microsoft's intentions. The non-Microsoft community trusts his intentions, and by association his actions, more than they did Ballmer's. I don't blame this lack of trust, heck I subscribe to it. But attributing all of these decisions to just Satya shows a lack of appreciation for how decisions of this magnitude are made at a company like Microsoft.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#305Repost2.
This is big news; it probably warrants two or three front-page posts. :)
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Stacker - Netscape - SCO And many others besides. Companies have reputations just like people do (that's why we call them 'incorporated') and just like you can lose your trust in a person you can lose your trust in a corporation. This is not about Microsoft just doing 'stupid stuff sometimes' it is about institutionalized criminal behavior sanctioned at the highest level of one of the largest software companies in…
That's not why we call them incorporated. 'Body' or 'corpus' are synonyms for 'organization'. They are called corporations because the embody some coordinated effort, not because someone realized "hey, this organization seems to have a personality. I'll call it a corporation."
No, 'incorporated' is another way of saying something is a legal entity independent of those that create it.
But since corporations tend to assume a lot of the traits of the people that run them and are given significant subsets of the rights normally afforded to real-life human beings the line between corporate identities and persons can blur to the point where we are allowed to ascribe (some) personal traits to corporations.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#307"Oh, shit", said Oracle.
Good, hopefully this pushes Oracle to refocus, reinvest in Java.
Competition is good. Microsoft still have megatons of work to do to catch up Java (mindshare or tooling wise).
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#308The politics of this are interesting, and IMO related to the decline of the PC as a platform. Suddenly Microsoft is the outsider crying for "openness" and "freedom" while hammering on the gates of the Google/Apple ecosystem. For Microsoft, it's less bad if everyone switches to an uncontrolled platform than if they switch to a platform locked in by a competitor. The embrace/extend/extinguish logic works the other way…
> Suddenly Microsoft is the outsider crying for "openness" and "freedom" while hammering on the gates of the Google/Apple ecosystem.
Just like Apple.
Apple only became open source friend after being acquired by NeXT (this is actually what happened inside).
The old Apple from the Mac OS 1 - 9 days was anything but open.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seeing comments like this “I'll never switch back to MS for what they've done in the past” always reminds me of this post from Hanselman http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx
I like Hanselman's blog a lot, but I found that post pretty disappointing. The reason there are a lot of people running around saying "Microsoft killed my pappy!" is because Microsoft actually did kill a lot of people's pappies, back in the day. When someone comes into town and shoots your pappy, it's not something you forget or forgive easily. The burden is on Microsoft to prove that they're not the same company as…
At this point there is literally nothing Microsoft can do to win these people over. They've done everything they could do short of porting the Windows UI to Linux (and even then... this and Powershell brings it pretty close). They're a huge contributor to open source, they support Linux pretty heavily on Azure, they open sourced their .NET as seen here, they listened to their customers on Windows 10, they're doing great things in mobile, putting out great hardware in the Surface line, pushing IE forward to match their competitors and the changing web, and that's just getting started.
So no, at this point it is on the Microsoft haters to get over it. And if you can't get over it, then just ignore it. As someone who works partially in the Windows world and thus is interested in Microsoft news, I'm tired of Microsoft news being flagged off the front page constantly. I'm tired of seeing something about Windows and the comments being filled with people hating on Windows 8 for bullshit rather than good discussion about the article. I'm tired of seeing great news like this and have people say "yeah but in 1994 they...". That was 20 years ago. Fucking get over it. Microsoft sure has.
If Microsoft is still doing things wrong, it's completely overshadowed by their detractors constantly shutting down legitimate discussions with their insane rambling about the past.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
C# as a language is better than Java, but not as good as Scala.
Yes, that's why you would use F# in .NET if you want something like Scala. And then I heard many people say that .NET wins again.
Meh, F# is pretty good, but Scala has a better type-system. You cannot model type-classes in F# for example and there's some ugliness in it, in a true Ocaml fashion - for example I don't like how you've got to deal with 2 types of generics or the prevalence of "static" methods, static methods that are complete hacks that go back to C++ at least (Scala has no such thing as static methods btw). In many ways Scala is a very elegant language, too bad that many people are scared by these myths that are flying around.
That said, people are missing the forest from the trees. This isn't about the language, but rather about the runtime and the standard library. That's the true value of the JVM, that's the true value in .NET.
There wouldn't be any problem for porting Scala to .NET. Sure, it would be difficult as .NET's reified generics are maybe too limited for Scala's type-system, but I'm sure somebody could make it work, at least partially.
And there was a Scala for .NET, but it lacked interest so it died. But hey, you can still run stuff built in Scala on top of .NET by means of IKVM ;-) Has poor performance compared to a JVM, but then again, people are willing to build stuff in Scala for Android. Also Clojure.NET is doing pretty good from what I've heard.
As a Scala developer that loves Scala and the JVM, I personally find this announcement very exciting. As finally, the JVM has true competition ;-)