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

341–350 of 937 posts

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

#341

Post by jacquesm »

cwyers wrote: post #322
jacquesm wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTP? Wget? Xmodem? Does it even matter? It's not as if downloading a piece of software without a browser is an impossibility. About 99% of the software on the machine I write this on has been downloaded using something called a package manager and the boot CD that started the process was downloaded as a torrent. No browser required. > Netscape's business model would have held the internet back significantly. If Micro…

I think the world is probably a worse place if every computer user was given a command prompt and asked to use wget over FTP to get themselves a web browser. Or worse, if they had to go to Best Buy to buy one on DVD. Like, I can and will make a joke about having to try and put the DVD into the smartphone, but seriously, that sounds worse for pretty much everybody.

Ok. So let's standardize on Firefox (or Opera), get rid of all the others by default and let users enable IE/Firefox/Safari and so on if and when they desire to do so.

And all three heavyweight gorilla IT companies could support FF/Opera with a clean conscience by donating (just like google does already, points for them).

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

#342

Post by jbooth »

psibi wrote: post #318
jbooth wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> majority of features in scala and Haskell for that matter are fundamentally misguided I'm interested in the Haskell part. What features do you think are fundamentally misguided ?

I'm much less experienced with Haskell than with Scala, so I might be unfairly painting it with the same brush here.

But, for example, https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/io.html.

At the end of the day, this is a huge inner-framework anti-pattern over the same procedural syscalls that every other language handles procedurally. I shouldn't have to care what a monad is, and side effects? The whole point of I/O is side effects. It could be a no-op, idle process or CPU-burning busy loop if I didn't care about side effects.

From that doc:

" So, in the end, has Haskell simply re-invented the imperative wheel?

In some sense, yes. The I/O monad constitutes a small imperative sub-language inside Haskell, and thus the I/O component of a program may appear similar to ordinary imperative code. But there is one important difference: There is no special semantics that the user needs to deal with. In particular, equational reasoning in Haskell is not compromised. The imperative feel of the monadic code in a program does not detract from the functional aspect of Haskell. An experienced functional programmer should be able to minimize the imperative component of the program, only using the I/O monad for a minimal amount of top-level sequencing. The monad cleanly separates the functional and imperative program components. In contrast, imperative languages with functional subsets do not generally have any well-defined barrier between the purely functional and imperative worlds."

So, basically, they acknowledge that their theoretical model has a huge impedance mismatch with what we write programs to do (I/O, eventually, somewhere). And that's fine, they can knock themselves out and I hope it's fulfilling for them. It's not for me.

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

#343

Post by jakevn »

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

[SerializableAttribute] [ComVisibleAttribute(false)] public class Dictionary : IDictionary, ICollection>, IDictionary, ICollection, IReadOnlyDictionary, IReadOnlyCollection>, IEnumerable>, IEnumerable, ISerializable, IDeserializationCallback

Both languages can be difficult to decipher. I do find that Scala's syntax is much more flexible, which can lead to more stumbling when trying to read code.

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

#344

Post by jacquesm »

freehunter wrote: post #309
smacktoward wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gr…

> That was 20 years ago. Fucking get over it. Microsoft sure has.

Some stuff from 2014, maybe that will help you to see that Microsoft has definitely not 'gotten over it':

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8596869

And that's just a very limited list.

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

#345

Post by general_failure »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #50

This is epic. Peter Thiel was right about creative Monopoly. The new Microsoft under Satya Nadella has totally changed the direction of Microsoft in just a few months. They had one of the best and rock solid development platforms and research division, and loyal customers. The new Azure cloud (Online + On Premise) along with the opening of .Net will change the playing field. I'm sure this is a great new for us develo…

Actually this doesn't have to do with Satya. This has been brewing for years. It is at best naive to think this was done in a few months.

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

#346

Post by [deleted] »

eloisant wrote: post #337
jbooth wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 piec…

[deleted]

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

#347

Post by general_failure »

curveship wrote: post #321

I started as an open source programmer. Then I got a job as a .NET programmer. Now I'm an open source programmer again. Feels good :)

I don't think you understand what open source programmer means :) You have to actually contribute to opensource projects to become one. Just using them means nothing.

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

#348

Post by karavelov »

edgyswingset wrote: post #238
moonchrome wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F# is more of a .NET analogue to Scala.

I'd say it's the .NET analogue to Scala with added elegance.

And removed flexibility that make it awkward - see for example the lack of higher kinds

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

#349

Post by virmundi »

JeremyMorgan wrote: post #224

I feel like the last couple years I've been cheerleading for MS and telling people how much they've changed, how open things are becoming, and how awesome the development experience is. It's fallen on deaf ears or met with resistance, but today's announcements are really gonna drive the point home. Developers need to start looking more seriously at C#/.Net. The Scotts (Hanselman/Guthrie), Miguel De Icaza and so many…

Until MS makes VS 20XX Professional cross-platform and free, I don't think they'll get much traction. I gave the a shot when I still used Windows via the Express editions. The fact that I had to jump between 3 editors to do anything and still didn't get NUnit integration is ridiculous.

Many languages can use the Eclipse, IntelliJ or Netbeans platform. The JVM provides a true multi-platform target as a first class idea. MS might be trying to do this, but they are really behind. I wonder if the world's most past.

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

#350

Post by tormeh »

jjoonathan wrote: post #167
_random_ wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope not, this way we will see a bit more of healthy competition in the indie game engine space. This is something Unity desperately needs.

Honest question from an outsider: it looks like Epic and Crytek have finally gotten around to moving in to the "low-end" of the game engine market. What's still unique about unity?

1. Not having to use C++, which should result in code that is harder to optimize but at the same time less work on memory leaks and other bizarre bugs.

2. Effortless porting. See 1.

2. Stock assets delivered with the engine - that's pretty valuable if you're indie.

Post reply on HN