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

481–490 of 937 posts

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

#481

Post by noblethrasher »

bad_user wrote: post #310
jkrems wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can model type classes in F#, but it's not pretty[1].

Interestingly, C# can model type classes much more straightforwardly (using implicit conversions), and this is one of the reasons I continue to use it along side F#.

[1]http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9868327/f-type-constraint...

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

#482

Post by icantthinkofone »

bad_user wrote: post #159
OWaz wrote: post #125

Earlier 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've also been pretty unforgiving about things that Microsoft did in the past to crush competing web browsers, competing standards like OpenGL or ODF, Linux or open-source in general. And sorry, but I do not agree with that article by Hanselman. Thing is, I treat companies like I treat people. Legally speaking, isn't that what they want, in the US anyway? So if you violate my trust, it's goodbye until I see serious a…

>...things that Microsoft did in the past to crush competing web browsers, competing standards like OpenGL or ODF, Linux or open-source in general. >I must say that with this move I'm finally ready to forgive Microsoft.

Well that didn't take much.

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

#483

Post by alanh »

tdicola wrote: post #156

Great news, but I think people need to realize this is really just Microsoft pledging to merge and support what Mono has already been doing. You won't magically be able to take a WPF app and run it on your Mac. You will however be able to write a server app or maybe simple command line tool that runs on Mac & Linux. It's great news to see Microsoft acknowledging and supporting Mono, but there isn't a magic switch tha…

Right. And that is a good thing. Java has shown us that no one really wants write-once-run-everywhere GUI software, as it never feels "right" or at-home on guest platforms

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

#486

Post by DanKlinton »

chenster wrote: post #388

what does iOS developer get out of it? What's the implications for iOS & Mac developers? It would be nice that I can finally develop iOS and Mac apps using C# and .NET coming from a seasoned .NET developers to iOS developer. But doesn't Mono can just do that already? Besides Apple will never approve apps not written in Swift or Object-C (exclude PhoneGap).

You can do this few years already with Xamarin. Thousands of developers are doing this today. What this changes is better .Net framework compatibility(less bugs) because Microsoft .Net source code will be reused.

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

#487

Post by yohanatan »

jbooth wrote: post #352
tome wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's a random line from the Scala standard collections library: def :+[B >: A, That](elem: B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That This is from the standard collections library. In Java, I've got a List.add function. In case it's not clear from the name, 'add', I can click through to the implementation and it's pretty obvious what's happening. In Scala, I've got +, ++, +:, :+, and a bunch of other nonsen…

The operators on collections always have alternate named forms. I actually instinctively skip over the operators when perusing the documentation and have no trouble at all finding what I need.

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

#489

Post by icantthinkofone »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #217
jacquesm wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still doing bad stuff today, just on different fronts. That said, I hope they give Google and Apple a run for their money, those are (probably) just as bad. The last ruling in the SCO case was a mere 4 years ago.

> They're still doing bad stuff today, just on different fronts. I mean no disrespect, but what's the bad stuff being done my Microsoft today?

The anti-trust result put Microsoft under US Federal oversight for 10 years. After 10 years, the Justice Department found Microsoft ignoring requirements they were supposed to supply them and extended that oversight for an additional two years which just ended in 2011.

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

#490

Post by hokkos »

jakevn wrote: post #343
jbooth wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is easier, there is only one concept to understand : generics, with scala you must understand generics, co and contra-variance, implicits.
Post reply on HN