Even more reason to port all of your C/C++ code to CMake. I'm excited to see upstream contribution from MS.
CoreCLR is now open source
61–70 of 347 posts
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know the story, but the logic behind it is simple: If you want to guarantee no one depends on GetHashCode staying static between runs of an application, change it all the time.
Also is it not for hash collision protection, which can end up hurting the runtime of many algorithms, causing a DoS?
It won't help much there as the number is static for a particular build.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#63I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…
As a practical matter, I doubt that they can. There's probably quite a lot of third-party code intertwined with Windows itself (especially in the device drivers that ship with it) that's subject to strict redistribution and publication restrictions.
Device drivers can be divorced from the core os.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not yet. MonoDevelop is the closest you'll get at the moment.
no need for that. Just use your favorite editor with omnisharp[1] [1] http://www.omnisharp.net/
if you can attach and debug a process through sublime text, then maybe.
as it stands there is no real replacement for visual studio (save maybe xamarin studio / mono develop)
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#65De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love. What the hell happened. It's like Skeletor became He-Mans best buddy all of a sudden and started helping everyone.
I'm thrilled. The MS tooling is really, really good and the only thing stopping me from committing to the stack fully has been it's lack of open sourceness (vendor lock in is still feasible but getting less of an issue).
Edit: Pardon the fanboyism but I've tried a set of feasible Non-MS language options for my particular domain and F# in Visual Studio beats for me, my particular use case and coding style Scala, Clojure, Ruby, Python, Haskell, "browser technologies"...
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#66I 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.
Probably the most immediate winner is Unity. They've been stuck on an ancient version of Mono because they did not want to license tech from Xamarin. They can now have MS derived runtimes free.
Wow, didn't even think about that. Huge step for the Unity project.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#67I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…
Sometimes I forget that they did the Shared Source release several years ago. However, once in a while I see it mentioned in an academic paper.
Point being, the most common reason companies give for not releasing source for a project is that they have code from contractors that they aren't able to release. That shouldn't be the case with Windows.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#68I really like the new Microsoft. Ballmer was really trying to run the company into the ground.
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.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#69I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…
As a practical matter, I doubt that they can. There's probably quite a lot of third-party code intertwined with Windows itself (especially in the device drivers that ship with it) that's subject to strict redistribution and publication restrictions.
Potentially Microsoft could use their significant market power to convince other companies to open source their code.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could/Does Visual Studio run in Linux?
I'm not sure they will migrate Visual Studio. First they'd need to move WPF, which is implemented in DirectX. Second, Visual Studio and MSDN are still profitable. Third, there's the Omnisharp project that;s working on providing support for the more common IDEs on linux. In fact, there's nothing stopping people from making Eclipse and IntelliJ plugins.
Silverlight's implementation of WPF runs on OS X already so presumably a lot of the ground work, at least for an OS X port, exists. I'd buy a copy of VS for Mac in a heartbeat.