[deleted]
CoreCLR is now open source
71–80 of 347 posts
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#72Earlier 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/
I still haven't gotten it working in vim consistently enough to switch to the mac for development. When it does work, the lag makes it too slow, doesn't really allow for method discovery like intellisense, Ctags and omnicomplete still get better mileage for me.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#73Earlier 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.
I really hope that JetBrains are working on a C# support for IntelliJ.
I'd buy the next version in a heartbeat if they offered it.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#74I 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.
First of all, it's not just opening up .NET. It's also many other cool things Microsoft has been doing: Linux on Azure, TypeScript, etc. etc.
Regarding .NET, it is likely it will benefit Microsoft significantly. First, because Microsoft would not do it without strong reasons. Second, we can guess at those reasons: Microsoft wants to grow its developer ecosystem. .NET has been limited due to being Windows-focused. Opening it up makes sense.
(Yes, Mono exists, but the .NET cross-platform experience still wasn't good enough. Not necessarily Mono's fault, but regardless, opening .NET can solve this (possibly at a cost to Mono).)
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#75I am really interested to see what happens once ASP.Net is running on Linux. C# and Visual Studio are fantastic, mature tools and I think a lot of developers would enjoy using them whereas they might be hesitant at the moment due to OS lock-in on the code they are writing.
There is more chance to see VS in OSX tan in Linux.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#76I 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…
Aren't the forks the real threat for Microsoft in open sourcing Windows?
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#77I 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.
> 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.
There are probably some parts that won't make it like Pinball [old new thing] but it shouldn't be significant at all.
>> Hey everybody asking that the source code be released: The source code was licensed from another company. If you want the source code, you have to go ask them.
[old new thing] blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/12/18/10378851.aspx
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#78I 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.
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 vest.
If it's possible to transpile either Java source or better Java class files to a CLR assembly, even some of the community momentum that Java has might turn into a benefit for .NET, too.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#79Earlier 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.
>> First they'd need to move WPF, which is implemented in DirectX.
What version? There is DX9 support on Linux and IIRC a partial DX10/11 implementation bit-rotting somewhere.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#80It's actually Free Software, not just open source. MIT license.