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

.NET 10

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 605 posts

Re: .NET 10

#441

Post by kbolino »

osigurdson wrote: post #432
Kwpolska wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with bytecode? Using something abstract helps with porting between OSes and architectures. .NET supports compiling to native executables, but only a limited subset of projects is supported, because reflection is not available in native AoT mode.

I think cross compilation has gotten a lot better so there is basically no need for it today. Obviously nothing is for free and would be hard for .NET to completely get rid of it at this point but I don't think a greenfield project would take the bytecode approach. Bytecode still makes sense in something like WASM as it is a sandboxed environment but otherwise skip the VM abstraction if you can imo.

> I think cross compilation has gotten a lot better so there is basically no need for [bytecode] today.

Have you never written a plugin or a mod?

Yes, AOT and cross-compilation are very good nowadays. This only replaces one of bytecode's features.

As soon as you AOT compile CLR or JVM languages, you lose access to the stable, feature-complete ABI that bytecode provides. Heck, many languages built from the ground up for static compilation like Go and Rust still have dismal ABI stories. The only exception I can think of is Swift, and it didn't come by it easily. AOT also imposes limits on reflection and runtime codegen (often, to the point of totally removing them).

If your software exists only in a walled garden, only gets deployed to infrastructure you 100% control, can't be extended at all, and/or can only be extended by full recompilation, then bytecode may seem useless. But that isn't the whole world of software.

Re: .NET 10

#442

Post by moron4hire »

nicoburns wrote: post #210
jitbit wrote: 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.

This site is full of people dreaming of making money off of software but refusing to pay for any software.

Re: .NET 10

#443

Post by 8cvor6j844qw_d6 »

nicoburns wrote: post #210
jitbit wrote: 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.

Security and quality aside, I feel that npm have a larger selection of libraries.

Re: .NET 10

#444

Post by stuartd »

throwaway7356 wrote: post #349
electroly wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy to avoid depending on the area; I'd urge you not to be discouraged by the presence of commercial libraries. They aren't as vital as it may seem from the outside. I've been a full-time C# developer since the first open beta and I have only one (1) instance where I used a commercial library. That was 2002 and if we were doing it today, we wouldn't have needed that commercial library. I have never used a commercial…

[flagged]

Wix was open sourced in 2004 - https://www.computerworld.com/article/1580079/microsoft-goes...

Re: .NET 10

#445

Post by mikestorrent »

osigurdson wrote: post #395
wvenable wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will pile on that I don't use any commercial libraries in .NET at all. Ironically, I do purchase a commercial library for front-end JavaScript. I agree that the commercial library offerings seem much more "in your face" with .NET but I don't find the actual breadth and depth of the free and open source library situation to be that troubling. It certainly continues to get better every year. .NET is very "batteries i…

Every company should give developers $100 per year to donate to the open source project of their choosing. Right now the conditions are such that maintainers are incentivized to rug pull.

I love this. I've also been bandying about the idea of an open source equivalent of a B Corp sort of accreditation where a company can essentially brag about auditably donating to the open source projects that it depends upon.

Re: .NET 10

#446

Post by mnau »

piskov wrote: post #415
AbraKdabra wrote: post #198

Some days ago I helped migrate a service in .NET Framework 2 to 4.8. Yup.

Copilpt will migrate it to .net 10 — there is upgrade agent

No, it won't. WebForms are .NET Framework only and are basically the key reason why any app stay on .NET Framework.

A ton of internal apps used by few user with is built upon WebForms. It's just not worth it.

Re: .NET 10

#447

Post by mattmanser »

nicoburns wrote: post #210
jitbit wrote: 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.

I use .Net a lot as in Europe it's everywhere. I think it occupies the same niche in Europe as Java does in America. Startups, enterprise, you name it. Lots of jobs in London with it for Finance.

And in 20 years I've personally never needed a paid library. Maybe one company had bought Telerik back in the day? I've now built up multiple startups, some with millions of users.

The only thing I ever plugin that's not a MS library really are serilog, validation with FluentValidation, and a job server, usually Hangfire just because it's easy. Other than that, most people have good C# API clients. Oh and OAuth, though the popular one got baited and switched like you said.

The key difference is that the core libraries cover much more for .Net than most other languages. I'm constantly adding npm modules, but rarely nuget packages.

But the opensource/closed source bait and switch has happened a lot recently it does seem. Someone was blaming it on some failure of an open source initiative MS were running.

But one of the big frustrations sometimes is dealing with some American Koolaid company who thinks Erlang support is a priority but .Net isn't. No code examples, no officially supported library. Most recent example, IBM of all people (C-level insisting we use their cloud, ugh).

Re: .NET 10

#448

Post by jimbob45 »

maccard wrote: post #178
jcmontx wrote: post #136

I've worked with .NET for over 10 years and we built our startup on top of it. Here are my thoughts: Pros: * Stability * Very decent standard library * Good balance between productivity and robustness * Great package management * Extremely easy to upgrade, so essentially free goodies (performance) every year or so Cons: * Very MSFT dominated (obviously) * Subpar tooling outside of Windows (I'm looking at you C# Dev K…

I use rider on Mac (and windows to be fair) and i think the experience is better than visual studio on windows. My biggest gripe with dotnet tooling is dotnet format. It’s not quick enough to use on a pre commit hook, so people don’t run it regularly and we get failures for it. It’s such a small nit, dotnet is a great environment to work in

Off topic but what is the name supposed to reference with Rider? I get that it’s a play on “writer” but what does riding have to do with anything?

Re: .NET 10

#449

Post by rnewme »

ablob wrote: post #436
dlahoda wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every company must pay enough to allow developer to donate from his own pocket (and each state to allow vat free donations without paper work).

Surely you don't expect someonoe that uses a particular piece of software only during work to donate to that from their own salary.

It literally puts food on your table?

Re: .NET 10

#450

Post by naasking »

8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #443
nicoburns wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Security and quality aside, I feel that npm have a larger selection of libraries.

Sure, with quality libraries like "is-even", who can deny the supremacy of the JS ecosystem?

https://www.npmjs.com/package/is-even

Post reply on HN