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

Announcing .NET Core 2.0

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#121

Post by GordonS »

nightski wrote: post #90
GordonS wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electron means you need 2GB of memory for a simple chat app... No, it doesn't. Visual Studio Code is an extensible IDE that is stuffed with features - yet it doesn't use that much memory, and it's fast . And yet there are seemingly simple Electron apps that use a lot of memory and are slow - it seems, just like with any other framework, it's possible to write both good and crappy code.

I mean, I have one window open with one file right now and it is using 400MB which is kind of crazy.

I just opened a large project in VS 2017 - 1GB of memory usage, vs 250MB by VS Code.

Sure, 250MB is a lot by 1990 standards, but for something as fully featured as cross-platform VS Code with today's machines (and especially when compared to full VS), it's rather impressive.

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#122

Post by GordonS »

pjmlp wrote: post #119
GordonS wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the exception of UWP support (which I'm sure will come), F#'s future seems pretty certain to me. There seems to have been a lot of interest in it lately, probably fueled by the current hype over functional programming.

Check the newly released Visual Studio 15.3. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/08/14/f-and-net... Apparently lack of support wasn't enough to delay Visual Studio 15.3's release, just let the community deal with it.

Point taken; it's obviously not a top priority for them, with C# remaining the primary focus. I guess that makes sense, since so many more devs use C#.

While dissapointing, I'm sure (well, I hope :) F# support will land in VS before too long. In the mean-time, VS Code really is a great alternative

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#123

Post by GordonS »

flukus wrote: post #120
GordonS wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't use VC++ 6 myself, but I'll take a guess at a few things: - IntelliSense - Tasks for external tools - Themeable - Extensible through plugins, for which there is a large ecosystem - Support for many languages, with syntax highlighting and linting (through plugins) - Support for different debuggers (e.g. debugging a Cordova app) - Support for different version control systems (TFS, Git, SVN...) - Minimap - Hig…

It had most of those things, especially the important ones: - IntelliSense - Yes - Tasks for external tools - I think so - Themeable - Yes, back then you could theme the whole windows desktop and native apps would comply. - Extensible through plugins, for which there is a large ecosystem - Kind of, all the "plugins" came from MS. - Support for many languages, with syntax highlighting and linting (through plugins) - Y…

Huh, kind of impressed it could do so much!

Ah, I missed one important one though:

  - Cross-platform
By 'Workspace zoom', I mean you can dynamically change the zoom level of open files, without having to go through settings menues to increase/decrease the font size

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#124

Post by TensorMetric »

pjmlp wrote: post #119
GordonS wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the exception of UWP support (which I'm sure will come), F#'s future seems pretty certain to me. There seems to have been a lot of interest in it lately, probably fueled by the current hype over functional programming.

Check the newly released Visual Studio 15.3. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/08/14/f-and-net... Apparently lack of support wasn't enough to delay Visual Studio 15.3's release, just let the community deal with it.

It also doesn't help when prominent members of that that community keep spreading FUD about UWP, driving more Windows developers away from F#.

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tppt4/f_and_n...

https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/896658073338695680

https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/896847612766289921

https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/897036090489671680

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#125

Post by [deleted] »

millstone wrote: post #101
TensorMetric wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only Microsoft would let us build native UWP apps in F# without having to jump through hoops with web frameworks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007166

Wait what? That's totally astonishing - I thought the entire point of .NET and the CLR was to be a language-agnostic runtime. Why can't you build UWP apps with it? How do they even know?

[deleted]

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#126

Post by pjmlp »

TensorMetric wrote: post #124
pjmlp wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check the newly released Visual Studio 15.3. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/08/14/f-and-net... Apparently lack of support wasn't enough to delay Visual Studio 15.3's release, just let the community deal with it.

It also doesn't help when prominent members of that that community keep spreading FUD about UWP, driving more Windows developers away from F#. https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tppt4/f_and_n... https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/896658073338695680 https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/896847612766289921 https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/897036090489671680

Fully agree with you regarding that prominent member.

Of course he doesn't care about UWP support, as he wants to promote his own VSCode plugin.

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#127

Post by TensorMetric »

pjmlp wrote: post #126
TensorMetric wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also doesn't help when prominent members of that that community keep spreading FUD about UWP, driving more Windows developers away from F#. https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tppt4/f_and_n... https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/896658073338695680 https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/896847612766289921 https://twitter.com/k_cieslak/status/897036090489671680

Fully agree with you regarding that prominent member. Of course he doesn't care about UWP support, as he wants to promote his own VSCode plugin.

Also sad to see those members who liked his tweets.

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#128

Post by seanmcdirmid »

pjmlp wrote: post #105
millstone wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait what? That's totally astonishing - I thought the entire point of .NET and the CLR was to be a language-agnostic runtime. Why can't you build UWP apps with it? How do they even know?

There is no CLR on UWP, everything is AOT compiled to native code, excluding JavaScript. VB and C# make use of .NET Native and C++/CX are just a few C++ extensions that look like C++/CLI but compile to native code as always. One can also use standard C++ with WRL or C++/WinRT libraries. .NET Native shares the compiler backend with Visual C++. The issue is that the .NET Native compiler team doesn't care about supporti…

I once had to really compile one of my UWP apps to get it working on a locked down Surface Hub (otherwise, I just ever ran them in the debugger). My freaking god, it took 45 minutes to compile a small app...no way...they threw out everything that was good about the CLR for AOT that allowed them to what...run on embedded devices?

It's really too bad, Win2D was quite nice.

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#129

Post by samuell »

SiVal wrote: post #18

I wish I had a better sense of where cross-platform desktop app platforms stood these days: Electron, Java, .NET, QT. All I hear are "Eww, Electron is ridiculous, slow, heavy Web junk for desktop", "Eww Java is blub, insecure, and half-abandoned by Oracle", "Eww, .NET is Microsoft and unreliable for anything serious on non-MS OSes", "Eww, by the time you pay the license, learn QT, learn the odd variant of C++, and ma…

I'm surprised no one here mentioned Lazarus [1].

Sure, it is based on a language which some people have aversions against (for unclear reasons), but it in fact does cross-platform GUI development almost flawlessly, and almost completely friction-less (no, or very little, code change to compile on the three desktop platforms).

Try open up a stable version on your platform of choice, drop a button on the form, double click and write some code (with autocompletion) and compile ... and then import the project on another OS and compile ... It's all a pretty mind-blowing experience, just how productive and "Just Works" the whole thing is.

To expand a bit, it compiles to compiled binaries in the range of MB, uses native GUI libs on each platform (GTK or Qt on Linux for example)... and you can now link it with a language like Go if you need some heavy multi-core processing, or need to access stuff that FPC doesn't have good libraries for [2].

It was discussed in depth here on HN just 5 days ago [3]

[1] https://www.lazarus-ide.org/

[2] https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?topic=24948.0

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973706

Re: Announcing .NET Core 2.0

#130

Post by predakanga »

tracker1 wrote: post #93
dep_b wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electron means you need 2GB of memory for a simple chat app like Slack to talk about the application you're building in a fully featured all bells and whistles included application like Visual Studio that only takes 700MB of your memory. Compare what Visual Studio + ReSharper does versus what Slack does. I have no idea what 70% of the features in Visual Studio do yet I'm using it professionally for years and years, t…

I have VS Code with a dozen plugins running, and using about 1GB two editor windows, each with a few tabs open, as well as the terminal (best point of integration imho) in each. Spotify seems to be using a bit under 200MB. For comparison, libre-office with a 60-row spreadsheet open is using 145MB. Frankly, it's not that bad... I've got 16GB on my laptop (thanks apple), and 32gb on my home desktop, though may go threa…

Spotify uses Chromium Embedded Framework, not Electron - doesn't change your argument, but it's good to know.

Source: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Spotify-make-a-multiplatform-l...

Post reply on HN