Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

news.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 937 posts

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#331

Post by tome »

jbooth wrote: post #297
eranation wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you are being down voted. Erik Meijer, a huge .NET contributor who worked at Microsoft (on C# among other things), and was behind the reactive .NET extensions (and also a big Haskell contributor) - he was saying exactly the same thing about Scala vs C# - http://www.infoq.com/presentations/covariance-contravariance... I can also testify as someone who uses Scala on a day to day basis and used C# at wo…

Probably because, A), it was an uncalled-for digression into language wars, and B), now that we're here anyways, a lot of us think the majority of features in scala and Haskell for that matter are fundamentally misguided. My goal is not to write elegant code, but to write the least complex code with the lowest cognitive overhead. TCO, 10x the man-hours in maintenance and all that. If the choice is between having to w…

> If the choice is between having to write null-checks or having to understand category theory to read my code

Me too. Luckily this is a false dichotomy.

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#332

Post by orf »

edwinnathaniel wrote: post #307
elchief wrote: post #301

"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).

Really? I think they are catching up fast on the mindshare front. Java is not cool anymore, it's grey and verbose, and I think C# has got nicer features. Also VS beats the pants off Eclipse any day.

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#334

Post by [deleted] »

jbooth wrote: post #303
saosebastiao wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#337

Post by eloisant »

jbooth wrote: post #297
eranation wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you are being down voted. Erik Meijer, a huge .NET contributor who worked at Microsoft (on C# among other things), and was behind the reactive .NET extensions (and also a big Haskell contributor) - he was saying exactly the same thing about Scala vs C# - http://www.infoq.com/presentations/covariance-contravariance... I can also testify as someone who uses Scala on a day to day basis and used C# at wo…

Probably because, A), it was an uncalled-for digression into language wars, and B), now that we're here anyways, a lot of us think the majority of features in scala and Haskell for that matter are fundamentally misguided. My goal is not to write elegant code, but to write the least complex code with the lowest cognitive overhead. TCO, 10x the man-hours in maintenance and all that. If the choice is between having to w…

A) I think C# is a great language actually, and Scala's success is probably due to Java's severe limitations. I just don't think someone working on Unix should be jealous of C# because there are great languages available here.

B) Precisely, unlike Haskell, Scala doesn't force you to write "elegant code", you can even use variables. Purists will flame you for that, but sometimes it's the best way to write a small piece of code and as soon as no state leaks outside of the function, it's not that bad. That said, I believe most of the features of Scala make maintenance easier, including the absence of null-checks as it moves errors from runtime to compile time and make major modifications without regressions easier.

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#338

Post by jnem »

gagege wrote: post #149
jnem wrote: post #111

This completely caught me by suprise. Will .NET see a comeback now? Or is it too little too late? In any event, this is a huge move for Microsoft who has historically avoided open source(ive always thought of yhem as the anti-open-source company).

"Don't call it a comeback." IMO, it never really went away. It's still huge in enterprise.

Truth, they are still there. Like many other Microsoft products they will likely be here for many years to come (with or with going open source). I just meant to say that it seems up till now we were seeing a decline in the .NET community. I know more than a few MS pro's jump ship, including at least one MVP.

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#339

Post by aespinoza »

derengel wrote: post #194

If the support for osx and linux depends on xamarin, the future of .NET on those platforms is very dubious.

Why would that be the case ? I think Xamarin has done a pretty good job on pushing the boundaries of C# and the framework on Mac and Linux.

Mono's SIMD is one example: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Nov-03.html

Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform

#340

Post by saosebastiao »

jbooth wrote: post #303
saosebastiao wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You intentionally chose code that is hard to read...I could easily do the same with C#. It isn't representative of the vast majority of the code that I use nor write.

That being said, when you understand the nuances of type annotations, that code is quite readable in the mathematical notation sense. It is concise and takes more time per byte to understand, but it tells me enough about the code that I rarely have to read the actual implementation to know exactly what it does.

Post reply on HN