5 ms·

Is that true anymore? I was under the impression that .NET is fully open source: https://dotnetfoundation.org/ https://dotnetfoundation.org/ Besides that thoug

by adgasf 10y ago

Is that true anymore? I was under the impression that .NET is fully open source: https://dotnetfoundation.org/ https://dotnetfoundation.org/ Besides that though, C# is much nicer than Java and fills a similar niche.

Matthias247 10y ago
That covers the new .NET core parts, not the classic .NET. The classic .NET framework contains lots of components (e.g. WinForms, but also others) which are mainly wrappers around Windows/COM components. Therefore they can't be fully open source. Nevertheless the .NET core and open sourcing effort is great from my POV.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- radicalbyte 10y ago
  ..and you don't want to go anywhere near that stuff unless you must write win ui software. It's my preferred language, especially now it is getting functional constructs. It's basically a more advanced, concise and flexible version of Java. Only with value types (fast algorithms). As others have said the ecosystem is different, it's better for games (Unity) but horrible for NLP (Lucene.net is a museaum piece and NHibernate isn't great). I write just as much TypeScript/JavaScript nowadays and keep my Java/Python up to date. I really want to add a functional language to replace Python (the 2/3 divide is tiring) but don't have the time (thanks to having two young kids and a wife who also works full time).
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  The classic .NET framework is available at Reference Source: https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource It's under a proper Open Source license now too (the MIT license).
pjc50 10y ago
Does that include the winforms stuff (which I believe was always missing from Mono)?
masklinn 10y ago
> I was under the impression that .NET is fully open source: https://dotnetfoundation.org/ https://dotnetfoundation.org/ That's not of much worth if the design process remains firmly in corporate hands. Microsoft is currently, slowly, opening the process to the community, but even then I expect corporate will continue driving most of the roadmap and keep veto on everything, very much like Swift — which is much much much further on that track than C# is, Microsoft having only created a C# design/evolutions mailing list and repository literally days ago, the ML was created on January 30th[0] and the repository was created and announced on February 1[1], the "community input" doesn't actually exit yet. [0] https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-January/thread.html https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-January/thre... [1] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/02/01/the-net-language-strategy/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/02/01/the-net-l...
- pionar 10y ago
  Being a little disingenuous there with your first link, only linking to the January archives. The February ones[1] have a lot more activity for only being a couple of days old. [1]https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-February/thread.html https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-February/thr...
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > Being a little disingenuous there with your first link That link was in support of my claim of the ML having been created on January 30, nothing else. And people posting stuff on a mailing list means nothing if it doesn't actually impact the language, which we can't judge yet because the opening isn't even a week old yet. As for the "lot more activity", it's mostly two blokes (Justin Spindler and Tanner Gooding) posting their old roslyn issues back to the ML. If you're looking for disingenuous may I suggest a mirror?

by adgasf 10y ago

Matthias247 10y ago

That covers the new .NET core parts, not the classic .NET. The classic .NET framework contains lots of components (e.g. WinForms, but also others) which are mainly wrappers around Windows/COM components. Therefore they can't be fully open source. Nevertheless the .NET core and open sourcing effort is great from my POV.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
radicalbyte 10y ago
..and you don't want to go anywhere near that stuff unless you must write win ui software. It's my preferred language, especially now it is getting functional constructs. It's basically a more advanced, concise and flexible version of Java. Only with value types (fast algorithms). As others have said the ecosystem is different, it's better for games (Unity) but horrible for NLP (Lucene.net is a museaum piece and NHibernate isn't great). I write just as much TypeScript/JavaScript nowadays and keep my Java/Python up to date. I really want to add a functional language to replace Python (the 2/3 divide is tiring) but don't have the time (thanks to having two young kids and a wife who also works full time).
WorldMaker 10y ago
The classic .NET framework is available at Reference Source: https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource It's under a proper Open Source license now too (the MIT license).

pjc50 10y ago

Does that include the winforms stuff (which I believe was always missing from Mono)?

masklinn 10y ago

> I was under the impression that .NET is fully open source: https://dotnetfoundation.org/ https://dotnetfoundation.org/ That's not of much worth if the design process remains firmly in corporate hands. Microsoft is currently, slowly, opening the process to the community, but even then I expect corporate will continue driving most of the roadmap and keep veto on everything, very much like Swift — which is much much much further on that track than C# is, Microsoft having only created a C# design/evolutions mailing list and repository literally days ago, the ML was created on January 30th[0] and the repository was created and announced on February 1[1], the "community input" doesn't actually exit yet. [0] https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-January/thread.html https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-January/thre... [1] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/02/01/the-net-language-strategy/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/02/01/the-net-l...

pionar 10y ago
Being a little disingenuous there with your first link, only linking to the January archives. The February ones[1] have a lot more activity for only being a couple of days old. [1]https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-February/thread.html https://lists.dot.net/pipermail/csharplang/2017-February/thr...
- masklinn 10y ago
  > Being a little disingenuous there with your first link That link was in support of my claim of the ML having been created on January 30, nothing else. And people posting stuff on a mailing list means nothing if it doesn't actually impact the language, which we can't judge yet because the opening isn't even a week old yet. As for the "lot more activity", it's mostly two blokes (Justin Spindler and Tanner Gooding) posting their old roslyn issues back to the ML. If you're looking for disingenuous may I suggest a mirror?