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

CoreCLR is now open source

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#191

Post by RubyPinch »

scrollaway wrote: post #171
brudgers wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good debugging tools that filter out the irrelevant are perhaps better. Odds are that any time you break out the debugger the fix is in your code not Windows, Linux, the JVM etc. That's not to say those things don't have bugs, only that they are orders if magnitude more debugged than most code under development.

You are so completely wrong. Follow the Wine project for a few weeks/months to get familiar with just how buggy, inconsistent and inconceivably obscure all of Windows' APIs are. If Windows was good and near-bug-free, Wine would have long been completed. Windows is not just its kernel.

well, it is near-bug-free, in that most of the bugs get permanently folded into the api and become features for backwards compatibility

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#192

Post by knocte »

voyou wrote: post #146
mackwic wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open-source academical licences are a good example. For example, part of the Win32 kernel are open for academic and are heavily share between the classes, but the limitations are here. For instance, this licence: http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0 It provide free usage, studying, display, publishing, but also explicitly says that some of the part could be binaries (machine-readable), you can't sell anything d…

I'm not sure if you linked to the license you intended to - the license at that link doesn't seem to include any of the limitations you mention. If it did include those limitations, I don't think if would qualify as an open source license, either.

I guess he meant to link to the RPL, which is the only license that the OSI has approved, but not the FSF.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#194

Post by Rapzid »

mdaniel wrote: post #78
unfamiliar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure those two statements are related. I don't see how having .NET open sourced is directly effecting Microsoft's bottom line. I like getting free stuff too, but that doesn't man it is necessarily profitable for the company.

IMHO, it's the "open" part and less the "source" part. I believe a lot of projects were reluctant to jump on the Mono train because they expected it would be steamrolled (on purpose or just through sheer manpower) by the .NET. However, if everyone is building on top of the same CoreCLR, it's possible that fear might subside. I doubt it will ever go away because Microsoft will continue to keep some APIs close to the v…

A lot of successful .NET projects are based on converting Java to C#, such as NGit.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#195

Post by MichaelGG »

aikah wrote: post #136
xanadohnt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, full-blown Visual Studio is totally free now. Win10 is practically free or totally free (if upgrading from a valid Win8).

well,still waiting for SQL Server (pro) to follow that trend... I guess I'll wait a long time.

Yeah. Even having a proper shared nothing cluster requires the Enterprise Edition, at like $12k a core. Just to get a slick version of what you can do with DRBD for free.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#196

Post by Rapzid »

sekasi wrote: post #181
benreic wrote: post #7

Quick link to what I think is the most interesting class in the CLR: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/mscorlib/s...

Admittedly, I've never been big in C#, but I'm AMAZED by how much repetition string comparison there is. IE: Environment.GetResourceString("ArgumentOutOfRange_Index") The string there is in multiple areas of that class, and the same behavior is displayed for all of them. Wouldn't logic suggest everything such as above would be moved in to a constant repository for clarity and also less potential human error for futur…

It's pretty common in C# to use Constants to represent strings. Cuts down on the repetition as you said and you get the Intellisense too. I'd be curios to know the reasoning for using the literals as well.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#197

Post by JetSpiegel »

brudgers wrote: post #168
pekk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is that nobody will support it as-is... they would just use the source to make or improve other things. Because this is what would be in the interests of the users. Even if it meant Windows got buried. But this is strictly imaginary because I doubt that 20 million lines of code are all under the unilateral control of Microsoft.

I think open source is great and I even admire Stallman because of not despite his single mindedness. I also don't think Windows being closed source is problematic. Choice is good and Windows is able to solve a particular set of problems efficiently by virtue of Microsoft's business model. That model fit my needs and interests for many years. Less so now because my needs and interests have changed to where the tradeo…

What kind of "choice" exists between open and closed source?

Everything you can do with closed source software you can also do with open, and there are things you can't do with closed source.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#198

Post by Sanddancer »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #29

I wonder how this would aid projects such as IronPython and IronRuby if at all, just out of curiosity. My only dream is that they eventually have VS on Linux.

Not much, I imagine. .net's been supporting languages like that for a long time through the Dynamic Language Runtime. Although, if more people use Iron(Python|Ruby|Scheme), the underlying runtimes, and quite possibly the DLR itself could see some code contribution loving.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#200

Post by yellowapple »

tedunangst wrote: post #16
unknownian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why they would do this. In fact, I don't see the benefit of MIT over Apache except for compatibility with GPLv2. But I'm definitely not an expert, if someone would want to explain.

Less words.

To be honest, that's actually one of the big motivators for me using MIT-style licenses (or BSD or ISC or somesuch) for a lot of my own code. I'm so accustomed to 525600-page EULAs that I cringe as soon as I see a license that exceeds one screenful, and I figure there are plenty of others who do the same.

Plus there are the other benifits (especially when it comes to free software projects being able to reuse that code without worrying so much about license compatibility).

Post reply on HN