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

Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

roslyn.codeplex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 459 posts

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#411

Post by pmr_ »

lgieron wrote: post #394
lugg wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why they would. This has been an obvious move for a long time, keeping it closed never really made any sense to me. They gained nothing from .Net being closed except hate and utter avoidance from people like me (vocal early adopters.) MS doesn't really make money off C# or .Net directly, they make money off the windows licenses you need to run the resulting code. Open C#/.Net = stronger, longer lasting co…

Releasing .NET sources could help Mono development and ultimately lead to .NET world not being locked to Windows (at least on servers, you'd still want Windows for Visual Studio when doing development)

A Mono developer should avoid looking at the .NET code at all costs. That would only set them up for patent law suits.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#412

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

bambam12897 wrote: post #114
baldfat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again the whole KILL MONO FUD was the actions of the Open Source Community in the last 5 years. I never understood how in the world they got this is a trap from everything that was happening. I don't agree with RMS many times but in this one way he was 100% wrong when he targeted mono.

You honestly don't get it? I really like microsoft products and I use them every day, however the business model is too lock people in to their ecosystem so that you have to purchase licenses for their products. Mono clearly undermines that b/c it allows you to "easily" jump ship to a free platform. Unless I'm somehow completely misunderstanding their business model - killing Mono just makes business sense.

> Mono clearly undermines that b/c it allows you to "easily" jump ship to a free platform.

You know, I tried that. I've tried to run about 3 .NET programs, written for Windows, under Mono on Linux. They all have had some library that was never part of the "open spec" that, therefore, ruined their chances of running on anything but Windows. The experience(s) put a nice, neat pin on the board as to what "open" meant when it came to Mono. It was a lot of double speak. And it's exactly this long-suffering characteristic about Microsoft that makes people like me take these current announcements with a large grain of salt.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#413

Post by bananas »

72deluxe wrote: post #384
bananas wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll get downvoted for this one but they have a similar characteristic as well: they both catch fire! I had a 2010 MBP go up in flames and an immediate colleague's one screen went phut and melted. Lambos do this too (google images)

What was the 2010 MBP made from? Do the unibody ones fare better than the plastic models? Were you typing so fast that the keyboard caught fire? Are you Superman? Answers in order please.

Well mine was made of magic smoke apparently :)

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#414

Post by Pxtl »

bananas wrote: post #393
72deluxe wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did they get rid of Installer Projects? We are still on VS2010 and although it isn't a massive issue to use a different installer system, it seems a very odd decision. I mean, you are writing apps for their OS using their tools. Why wouldn't you want to create an installer? Daft!

It's because the installer packages stink. WiX is a far better platform.

WiX is missing all the ease-of-use features it needs to be a non-agonizing process. Deprecating installer packages in favour of WiX would make sense if they provided a migration path and better tooling for WiX.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#415

Post by ygra »

pmr_ wrote: post #411
lgieron wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Releasing .NET sources could help Mono development and ultimately lead to .NET world not being locked to Windows (at least on servers, you'd still want Windows for Visual Studio when doing development)

A Mono developer should avoid looking at the .NET code at all costs. That would only set them up for patent law suits.

The .NET reference source is licensed in a way that Mono developers can look at it without scratching their eyes out afterwards.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#416

Post by egeozcan »

jenscow wrote: post #361
jussij wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MS doesn't really make money off C# or .Net directly, they make money off the windows licenses you need to run the resulting code. On this page: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/02/microsoft-updates-visual-st... There is this quote: Microsoft also today announced that Visual Studio 2013 has sold over 3.7 million copies since its release less than five months ago. That makes it the fastest-selling release of Visual Stu…

Impressive numbers. VS2012 was shockingly bad. VS2010 users who dodged it were now 2 releases behind.

We are using VS2012 at work and it works like a wonder. Am I missing something?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#418

Post by maxlybbert »

pmr_ wrote: post #411
lgieron wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Releasing .NET sources could help Mono development and ultimately lead to .NET world not being locked to Windows (at least on servers, you'd still want Windows for Visual Studio when doing development)

A Mono developer should avoid looking at the .NET code at all costs. That would only set them up for patent law suits.

Unlike GPL2, the Apache license has an explicit patent grant. When I first saw this announcement, I didn't realize what effect it will have on the patents used to bring up any chance they got: they join the patents already available under various approaches (due to C# standardization or the Communit Promise). And I believe you can now avoid the goofiness of all end users explicitly needing to accept the Community Promise.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#419

Post by vetinari »

coldtea wrote: post #285
untaken wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C# support in IntelliJ would be a dream come true! (yes, I know about ReSharper - but that's just lipstick on a pig)

Pig? VS is considered one of the best IDEs out there. On par, if not better than IntelliJ.

If it was better, it would not need ReSharper.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#420

Post by 72deluxe »

fsiefken wrote: post #402
72deluxe wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Chromebooks outsold MacBooks but I don't think you can compare them. Chromebooks are like disposable cameras. If they are referring to the cheapy plastic things, I wonder if people are buying them as devices to use whilst on the toilet or in areas where mugging is a risk? Most Chromebooks are glorified phone hardware. Even the one with the whizzbang screen has lousy soldered-on local storage, so it fails as a…

My acer c720p has a haswell processor, 4 GB ram and I'm working from ssd right now. You can dual boot into Linux and develop in rails, vim, x-windows is 3d accelerated. Virtualbox, vmware, libreoffice, postgresql, nginx - everything works. Linux is not as shiny as OSX, but it gets the job done.

That's good. I'm not trying to rally for OSX's cause as I develop on all platforms, with Mac OSX only being officially/legally able to be ran on Mac hardware which is why I didn't get a PC for developing on a Mac properly. I did build a hackintosh but found the hardware on MacBooks compelling when I saved up enough.

Do you supplement the internal storage with external? Is it a hassle? My Windows VMs are all 50GB+ so having tiny internal SSD storage is crippling.

Post reply on HN