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

We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 225 posts

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#151

Post by jrs235 »

bcantrill wrote: post #17

This is getting terrifyingly close to my prediction that Microsoft should/would/will buy GitHub. When I first started predicting this two or so years ago, it was mainly for its comedic value (it always got laughs, followed by "yeah, they should!" followed by nervous laughter followed by "wait, do you think they would actually do that?!"), but after the open sourcing of .NET I honestly think anything is possible. Espe…

Wait wait wait! Why would Microsoft, or any company, increase the value of a company before buying it (thus increasing the amount they have to payout to existing shareholders)? Wouldn't you think Microsoft or some other company would buy first, then make the company worth more? For example, let's say Chevy is [seriously] thinking about buying [BatteryCompany]. Would Chevy put in an order for millions of dollars worth of batteries and then buy, requiring Chevy to pay more to existing shareholders? Or would Chevy try buying the company then placing the orders to its subsidiary?

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#152

Post by andrewchoi »

pmelendez wrote: post #150
to3m wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C# is oft underrated, in my view. It's very quick to code in, is part of a large (if Windows-centric) ecosystem, and has been generally fairly tastefully designed. Compared to other languages you might compare it to, its designers aren't afraid to be a bit avant garde at times (unlike Java), it's got static typing (unlike Python), it's got garbage collection (unlike C), and... well, I know Go programmers hate it when…

G-bomb?

I assume he means generics.

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#153

Post by Retra »

tacos wrote: post #101
pron wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the idea of using C#, .NET, or coding Windows Apps? Far fewer devs under 30 are doing that than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Except I'm not sure MS is still betting on Windows apps, and they're not making money off of .NET either. Of course, it's very prestigious to have your own dev tools/platform/language and all the big kids have them, but none of them are making money.

There are certainly more devs now than 20 years ago, and certainly more types of projects where the C#/.NET stack isn't appropriate, but I'm not sure your argument is valid beyond that. Microsoft's also making plenty of money off .NET! Dev tools alone is a billion dollar business for them. The ecosystem around SharePoint alone (which sucks!) is larger than that of every tech on the HN homepage right now. Spend five m…

Microsoft's development tools are (therefore) expensive, so unless you're getting paid to use them, it's harder to invest yourself in them.

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#154

Post by rjbwork »

hueving wrote: post #114
rjbwork wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under-30 dev here. Been programming in C# for the past 3.5 years now, and loving every minute of it. I find VS and the associated tools be a far more productive and enjoyable experience than the Linux/Unix toolchains I was forced to use in undergrad, and C# to be a completely amazing language. The two warts, for me, are MSBuild (powerful, but obtuse at times, but still better than make) and PowerShell (again, powerfu…

>It really makes doing some very technically difficult/interesting things easy on Azure. Doesn't that just mean Azure has horrible APIs that are impossible to work with without the 'magic tooling'?

Maybe, TBH I've never tried using their services in any other way.

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#155

Post by woodman »

bunderbunder wrote: post #123
brudgers wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[IANAL] My impression is that GPL (or another copyleft style licence) would create incompatibilities with the business models of many of their customers. Taking contributions would also be problematic since Microsoft may wish to dogfood their opensource for proprietary products. For better or worse many of their products incorporate licensed technology from other companies under terms incompatible with GPL. So GPL's…

This. GPL is just really really hard to work around if you're selling non-SAAS products. In general, it's not something you try to do if you have any alternative. And nowadays, you almost always have an alternative. Increasingly often it's a more capable, more actively maintained, and better supported option that comes with the added bonus of not needing to take the time to get special approval from your legal depart…

> if you're selling non-SAAS products

Pretty funny, considering how much RMS dislikes SAAS.

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#156

Post by jordanpg »

chrisdone wrote: post #137
edpichler wrote: post #136

Microsoft has being doing good decisions lately. They are becoming more open, also integrating more with industry leaders. Another good strategic decision they made was the partnership with Dropbox ( https://blog.dropbox.com/2014/11/dropbox-microsoft-office-pa... ) not mattering if they already have a similar service (OneDrive). To me, these are signals of a good administration. This company is changing to keep growi…

Call me cynical, but the first thing that springs to mind with these kind of opening up is the sign of a company no longer with the bullying power to not care about being open. Rather than these changes occurring because a hierarchy of managers had a change of heart (look guys, they learned that open source is good!), a market share drop from 97% to 20% makes you humbled and reconsider your strategy, and products tha…

Agreed.

This avalanche of pro-community news out of MS since Nadella took over is about MS rebranding itself, particularly with younger people who (incorrectly or otherwise) believe that MS technologies are "greying". They can no longer take their market dominance for granted. I think it's probably too late and doubt whether they can change the perception of MS as an overall closed ecosystem.

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#157

Post by Encosia »

Retra wrote: post #153
tacos wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certainly more devs now than 20 years ago, and certainly more types of projects where the C#/.NET stack isn't appropriate, but I'm not sure your argument is valid beyond that. Microsoft's also making plenty of money off .NET! Dev tools alone is a billion dollar business for them. The ecosystem around SharePoint alone (which sucks!) is larger than that of every tech on the HN homepage right now. Spend five m…

Microsoft's development tools are (therefore) expensive, so unless you're getting paid to use them, it's harder to invest yourself in them.

There's been a free version of each Visual Studio release for about ten years.

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#158

Post by brudgers »

mbesto wrote: post #145
a3n wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only if Github is selling." Everyone is selling, for the right number of billions. "We are excited about this new stage, because we are better positioned to ..."

a16z is their lead investor. Which presumptuously means there is definitely a selling price and Microsoft definitely has cash.

A number of big players have the cash...Apple, Google, Oracle. So do sovereign investment funds and Berkshire-Hathaway. Other than FUD, there's nothing pointing to Microsoft and Google makes far more extensive use of Github:

https://github.com/google

Re: We are moving the Roslyn code to GitHub

#159

Post by ddbennett »

pmelendez wrote: post #91
benbristow wrote: post #85

BitBucket for private stuff/stuff I don't want showcasing. GitHub for open-source. Works perfectly fine for me and since they're both Git based there's no extra learning curves for either of them.

> BitBucket for private stuff/stuff I don't want showcasing. GitHub for open-source. I use them in the same way, but I can't help but feeling that I am taking advantage of Bitbucket and not giving anything in return, regardless of being good guy Bitbucket.

If you like Bitbucket don't feel bad about using it. We like seeing real developers benefit from our efforts -- it's a refreshing break from playing cat and mouse with the bad actors trying to ruin it for everyone.
Post reply on HN