They faked being kind of opensource so many times that I'll believe it when I'll see it.
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/LICENSE :)
Not GPLv3, watch out for patent issues.
Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
501–510 of 937 posts
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#502[deleted]
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laziness. And your graphic designer can use it. As a lot of engine, it's nice when you want something simple very quick. But when you want to tweak it or make it things more specific it's a lot of time a pain in the *. It can save time in the beginning and you will prototype early. Easy to use and easy to access.
I work on a team with a graphic designer who cannot code at all, and is doing amazing things with Unreal Engine. This includes coding shaders (yes, shaders!) using only the blueprint drag and drop system. You just set up how you want it to look, and the system compiles it to shaders under the covers. The technology is super amazing. The revolution in competition for indie game development platforms is here. I don't k…
To be fair visual programming is a known territory for designers:
http://blog.interfacevision.com/design/design-visual-progarm...
Also Unreal Engine will be fixed soon ;) - Xamarin is working on C# scripting for it.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#504Earlier 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.
IMHO this works to Scala's detriment. I very much enjoy Python and Clojure precisely because they have one, generally accepted way of doing things. Is it a silver bullet? Of course not, but this works for me 9 times out 10 and I find that coming back to my code later (or sharing with colleagues) is far easier because most code will be structured in a familiar way and therefore take less time to understand the unique…
Actually that's the one thing that's driven me away from Clojure.
I love the simplicity behind the language and it makes simple things actually simple - which isn't as trivial as it sounds. But once you start dealing with complex things in Clojure the language doesn't do much for you, if you can't fit your problem in to it's provided toolkit the code written will actually be horrible - for example go look at core.async [1] implementation - just reading that code gives me a headache - I understand it's complicated stuff with buffering and all but having type annotations on protocols and variables used would be extremely helpful when trying to parse that code. Types help me think more abstractly when I'm reading the code as I can take them as compiler enforced contracts and think of them in abstract terms, in dynamically typed languages complexity and the amount of things you need to be aware of is just too overwhelming IMO.
[1] https://github.com/clojure/core.async/blob/master/src/main/c...
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Silicon Valley is all OSS/Java. ElasticSearch, Hadoop, Cassandra, HBase, HDFS (mixed with C). Newer infrastructure for big-data are either Java, Scala, Clojure (one or two tools). Some of the startups also use Java (not all). I rarely see C#. So yes, C# is not catching up yet. Sorry, Eclipse + Ecosystems (that include plugins/integrations and whatnot) = beats VS any day (with or without pants). And if you have money,…
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#506Considering Scott is probably watching this.. What do you think about the near future about running vNext projects on a simple Raspberry Pi (= low-end configurations).
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth does "I don't like operators" support your claim?
The claim was that scala code is very difficult to read and idiomatic scala code, as evidenced by their collections library, brings along a ton of conceptual overhead that creates much more complexity than it eliminates. That line alone drives home the point for me, you can read the rest of scala.collection.immutable if you need more convincing.
First and foremost, I think you need to read about Blub. [0]
Also, idiomatic Scala code is perfectly readable. You have no right to complain about readability until you've dealt with spaghetti code written for Megacorp Inc, that completely ignores the fundamentals of structured programming. :)
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Personally I feel this is not worth the effort. Though this reminds me of Apple's attempt to push users to use Safari, which I agree is a bad idea.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/LICENSE :)
Not GPLv3, watch out for patent issues.
Re: Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Personally I feel this is not worth the effort. Though this reminds me of Apple's attempt to push users to use Safari, which I agree is a bad idea.
And googles attempts to get people to switch to chrome. That button really got on my nerves. As if it should matter to google what browser I use to view a website. Oh, wait, it does.