Live data from Hacker News

.NET 10

devblogs.microsoft.com

231–240 of 605 posts

Re: .NET 10

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to read https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati... Publishing your app as Native AOT produces an app that's self-contained and that has been ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled to native code. Native AOT apps have faster startup time and smaller memory footprints. These apps can run on machines that don't have the .NET runtime installed.

And this sounds great until you get to the laundry list of restrictions. For us the showstopper was you can't use reflection.

You can't use reflection with AOT compilation. That's what AOT compilation is. Java has the same limitation for AOT compilation, for example.

Re: .NET 10

#232
post #2

For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%. We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally. I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

I think the key problem is that a large number of startups are shipping software in containers, and dotnet requiring a CLR is not particularly well-suited for containerization. It's like the old school Java JVM model. You have to ship a copy of the runtime with every container, and if you're doing proper microservices it's an awful lot of overhead. Yes I'm aware MS makes it easy to build containers and even single ex…

Meh. Probably 100x more startups use Python and JavaScript than anything else combined.

Re: .NET 10

#233
post #2

For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%. We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally. I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

> I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma. I tried .NET and liked C# as a language. But even though the language and runtime are now open source, it seemed like a lot of the recommended libraries were still commercially licensed, which was an immediate nope from me. I've never encountered that in any other ecosystem.

Recommended by whom? I've been doing .NET for 23 years (since the first beta) and I've never paid for a single library in any commercial project I've been part of.

Re: .NET 10

#235
post #2

For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%. We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally. I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

I think the "confusing" aspect with C#, being part of the Microsoft eco-system, is that there are many smaller companies (and startups) that may have concern paying for such tools. To the uneducated, C# is linked to Visual Studio.. the IDE.. and the Community edition if free as long as you are a student, open-source, and individuals. Professional and Enterprise are paid. (Yes - there is Visual Studio Code) Again, I a…

What are you talking about C# being tied to Visual Studio? This is 2025 not 1995.

I do my hobby .NET development in Zed and my serious work in Rider. .NET is open source and MIT licences. I do most of my development on a ARM MacBook Pro, or using my workstation which runs Fedora.

We deploy our code on kubernetes clusters usually on AWS.

All of the tooling, compiler, libraries etc are open source and cross platform and free. Not a single one of the developers in my team uses Windows or Visual Studio.

Re: .NET 10

#236
post #2

For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%. We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally. I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

I think the key problem is that a large number of startups are shipping software in containers, and dotnet requiring a CLR is not particularly well-suited for containerization. It's like the old school Java JVM model. You have to ship a copy of the runtime with every container, and if you're doing proper microservices it's an awful lot of overhead. Yes I'm aware MS makes it easy to build containers and even single ex…

Nowadays it's very common to have .NET apps being containerized and running them on K8s or whatever you like in production -- I think you are relying on outdated information.

It's also well-suited for that. Of course, you won't end up with a tiny Go docker image, but this doesn't matter.

Re: .NET 10

#237
post #2

For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%. We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally. I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

I think the key problem is that a large number of startups are shipping software in containers, and dotnet requiring a CLR is not particularly well-suited for containerization. It's like the old school Java JVM model. You have to ship a copy of the runtime with every container, and if you're doing proper microservices it's an awful lot of overhead. Yes I'm aware MS makes it easy to build containers and even single ex…

> dotnet requiring a CLR is not particularly well-suited for containerization

Why? I routinely put compiled .NET programs into containers.

It's also easy (easier than Rust even) to build on Mac targeting a Linux image.

Re: .NET 10

#238
post #2

For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%. We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally. I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

I think the key problem is that a large number of startups are shipping software in containers, and dotnet requiring a CLR is not particularly well-suited for containerization. It's like the old school Java JVM model. You have to ship a copy of the runtime with every container, and if you're doing proper microservices it's an awful lot of overhead. Yes I'm aware MS makes it easy to build containers and even single ex…

Just say you don't want to use .NET. It's fine, but how many startups ever get to over 10k containers? You can use AOT to further reduce the footprint. It's totally fine to hate Microsoft, but this is as weak an argument as I've ever seen.

Re: .NET 10

#239
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to read https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati... Publishing your app as Native AOT produces an app that's self-contained and that has been ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled to native code. Native AOT apps have faster startup time and smaller memory footprints. These apps can run on machines that don't have the .NET runtime installed.

They're self contained and native, but they're still massive. There's been some work on CoreRT and a general thrust to remove all dependencies on any reflection (so that all metadata can be stripped) and to get tree-shaking working (e.g. in Blazor WASM). It seems like in general they're going in this direction.

Smaller is better, of course, but I've never found the size of .NET binaries to be an issue.

What problems does this cause?

Re: .NET 10

#240

Anybody remember IronPython, IronRuby, etc?

IronScheme[0]! I was pretty happy to be able to expose async-await in a neat little library[1]. I wonder if it's in use anywhere. I didn't get to use it in the project I was working on at the time.

[0] https://github.com/IronScheme/IronScheme

[1] https://github.com/IronScheme/IronScheme/pull/141

Post reply on HN