4 ms·

Why do you think it's been closed source with minimal cross platform effort? Most of everything from Microsoft related to C# is open source. This includes their

Why do you think it's been closed source with minimal cross platform effort? Most of everything from Microsoft related to C# is open source. This includes their compiler, the runtime, and the framework and libraries. And it's been this way since 2014. The .NET standard itself has always been open and cross platform implementations like Mono go back to 2004! I'm not sure what you mean by 'heavyweight.' Its performance is head to head with C++. Here's the primary repo for .NET goodies: https://github.com/microsoft/dotnet https://github.com/microsoft/dotnet --- And if anybody downvoting could take a second to actually chime in, it would be illuminating. From my perspective all I see an immense amount of misinformation about the language, and I'm genuinely curious what people may not like about it.

eesmith 9y ago
I know little on this topic, but as you were looking for some feedback I thought I would response. Because the Microsoft version was closed source for a long time? It was released in 2000. You give 2014 as the open source date, which was only 4 years ago. Woolvalley was referring to the implementation, so bringing up the specification is not that relevant. The ECMA specification does (did?) not include ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms. The implementation of those APIs were potentially covered under patent, as the Microsoft Community Promise did not apply. As Wikipedia points out, "These technologies are today[when?] not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications, they are simply there for developers and users who need full compatibility with the Windows system." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Microsoft's_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Micro... . While that point is moot today, that is part of the history which guides current views. If by C# you mean the ECMA specification, then that's different than C# as available for Windows by Microsoft. Is C# a first-class citizen on Linux comparable to how Visual C# is a first-class citizen on Microsoft Windows, or how C++ is a first-class citizen on Linux? I don't have the experience with that, but it doesn't seem to be the case. What languages do you consider to be "first-class" and "second-class" on Linux?
- indubitable 9y ago
  Much appreciated! One clarification, since my own language was sloppy. C# did not get open sourced in 2014. That was the date that Microsoft open sourced just about everything (and that's a weasel word there - to my knowledge, it is everything) that wasn't already open source. Things like ADO/ASP/Windows Forms/etc were open sourced back in 2008, along with Microsoft's implementation of their framework libraries, which Mono rapidly integrated into their implementation. And so on that note, much of that information on the Wiki page is outdated by at least a decade. Mono, especially since their 2.0 release (back in 2008), has been a fully fleshed out, cross platform, production ready alternative to Microsoft's implementation. So I certainly wouldn't call C# a second class citizen on Linux by any means. The one and only reason Linux is not my primary development platform is the lack of Visual Studio. Ultimately C# started out pretty awful. The language was a mediocre java clone, performance was abysmal, and the language itself was lacking in features. But that changed relatively rapidly, and certainly today it bears little resemblance to where it started. And I think that is perhaps the problem, people seem to think C# of today is the C# of 2004, but I don't understand why that degree of misinformation is so strongly exemplified in this particular language. I think it's particularly a shame because of what a successful tool the language has evolved into.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    You wrote "Things like ADO/ASP/Windows Forms/etc were open sourced back in 2008". Could you explain that further? It appears to contradict this ZDNet article from 2014, http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-open-source-more-of-net-and-bring-it-to-linux-mac-os-x/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-open-source-more-o... , which says: > Microsoft to open source more of .NET, and bring it to Linux, Mac OS X > Microsoft is porting its server-side .NET stack to Linux and Mac OS X, and is making more of that stack available as open source. ... > In April 2014, Microsoft announced plans to open source a number of its developer technologies , including ASP.NET, the Roslyn .NET compiler platform, the .NET Micro Framework, .NET Rx and the VB and C# programming languages. ... > Microsoft is not planning to open source the client side .NET stack, which means certain pieces like the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and Windows Forms won't be going open source, Here's another link from 2014, this describing how .NET Core was made open source. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2014/11/12/net-core-is-open-source/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2014/11/12/net-core-... . It says: > As a .NET developer you were able to build & run code on more than just Windows for a while now, including Linux, MacOS, iOs and Android. > The challenge is that the Windows implementation has one code base while Mono has a completely separate code base. The Mono community was essentially forced to re-implement .NET because no open source implementation was available. Sure, the source code was available since Rotor but we didn’t use an OSI approved open source license, which made Rotor a non-starter. Customers have reported various mismatches, which are hard to fix because neither side can look at the code of the other side. This also results in a lot of duplicated work in areas that aren’t actually platform specific. This would seem to contradict your statement that "Things like ADO/ASP/Windows Forms/etc were open sourced back in 2008, along with Microsoft's implementation of their framework libraries, which Mono rapidly integrated into their implementation." Here's another page, describing the difficulties before .NET Core, http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/why-is-dot-net-core-important/ http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/why-is-dot-net-core-imp... : > Previously, 'cross-platform' with Microsoft was a joke - it was cross-platform but only within the Microsoft Windows operating system family. .NET Core brings the true cross-platform compatibility, which means you can have one single source code base on Windows, Mac, and Linux. This is a huge deal, especially between Windows and Linux - it gives you more choice for deployment, hosting, and scaling. > By making its fundamental codebase open source, Microsoft is giving .NET developers an incredible opportunity to enter into areas with their existing skills which were previously locked off to them. The opportunities presented are only going to start to emerge over the next months and years - it's well worth your while checking it out and taking .NET Core for a spin. Now, certainly it's possible that you are correct, and these are all parts of the misinformation derived from the early days of C# and .Net. If so, could you provide some references? Otherwise it's very easy for me to conclude that you misremember the historical details.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

eesmith 9y ago

I know little on this topic, but as you were looking for some feedback I thought I would response. Because the Microsoft version was closed source for a long time? It was released in 2000. You give 2014 as the open source date, which was only 4 years ago. Woolvalley was referring to the implementation, so bringing up the specification is not that relevant. The ECMA specification does (did?) not include ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms. The implementation of those APIs were potentially covered under patent, as the Microsoft Community Promise did not apply. As Wikipedia points out, "These technologies are today[when?] not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications, they are simply there for developers and users who need full compatibility with the Windows system." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Microsoft's_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_and_Micro... . While that point is moot today, that is part of the history which guides current views. If by C# you mean the ECMA specification, then that's different than C# as available for Windows by Microsoft. Is C# a first-class citizen on Linux comparable to how Visual C# is a first-class citizen on Microsoft Windows, or how C++ is a first-class citizen on Linux? I don't have the experience with that, but it doesn't seem to be the case. What languages do you consider to be "first-class" and "second-class" on Linux?

indubitable 9y ago
Much appreciated! One clarification, since my own language was sloppy. C# did not get open sourced in 2014. That was the date that Microsoft open sourced just about everything (and that's a weasel word there - to my knowledge, it is everything) that wasn't already open source. Things like ADO/ASP/Windows Forms/etc were open sourced back in 2008, along with Microsoft's implementation of their framework libraries, which Mono rapidly integrated into their implementation. And so on that note, much of that information on the Wiki page is outdated by at least a decade. Mono, especially since their 2.0 release (back in 2008), has been a fully fleshed out, cross platform, production ready alternative to Microsoft's implementation. So I certainly wouldn't call C# a second class citizen on Linux by any means. The one and only reason Linux is not my primary development platform is the lack of Visual Studio. Ultimately C# started out pretty awful. The language was a mediocre java clone, performance was abysmal, and the language itself was lacking in features. But that changed relatively rapidly, and certainly today it bears little resemblance to where it started. And I think that is perhaps the problem, people seem to think C# of today is the C# of 2004, but I don't understand why that degree of misinformation is so strongly exemplified in this particular language. I think it's particularly a shame because of what a successful tool the language has evolved into.
- eesmith 9y ago
  You wrote "Things like ADO/ASP/Windows Forms/etc were open sourced back in 2008". Could you explain that further? It appears to contradict this ZDNet article from 2014, http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-open-source-more-of-net-and-bring-it-to-linux-mac-os-x/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-open-source-more-o... , which says: > Microsoft to open source more of .NET, and bring it to Linux, Mac OS X > Microsoft is porting its server-side .NET stack to Linux and Mac OS X, and is making more of that stack available as open source. ... > In April 2014, Microsoft announced plans to open source a number of its developer technologies , including ASP.NET, the Roslyn .NET compiler platform, the .NET Micro Framework, .NET Rx and the VB and C# programming languages. ... > Microsoft is not planning to open source the client side .NET stack, which means certain pieces like the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and Windows Forms won't be going open source, Here's another link from 2014, this describing how .NET Core was made open source. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2014/11/12/net-core-is-open-source/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2014/11/12/net-core-... . It says: > As a .NET developer you were able to build & run code on more than just Windows for a while now, including Linux, MacOS, iOs and Android. > The challenge is that the Windows implementation has one code base while Mono has a completely separate code base. The Mono community was essentially forced to re-implement .NET because no open source implementation was available. Sure, the source code was available since Rotor but we didn’t use an OSI approved open source license, which made Rotor a non-starter. Customers have reported various mismatches, which are hard to fix because neither side can look at the code of the other side. This also results in a lot of duplicated work in areas that aren’t actually platform specific. This would seem to contradict your statement that "Things like ADO/ASP/Windows Forms/etc were open sourced back in 2008, along with Microsoft's implementation of their framework libraries, which Mono rapidly integrated into their implementation." Here's another page, describing the difficulties before .NET Core, http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/why-is-dot-net-core-important/ http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/why-is-dot-net-core-imp... : > Previously, 'cross-platform' with Microsoft was a joke - it was cross-platform but only within the Microsoft Windows operating system family. .NET Core brings the true cross-platform compatibility, which means you can have one single source code base on Windows, Mac, and Linux. This is a huge deal, especially between Windows and Linux - it gives you more choice for deployment, hosting, and scaling. > By making its fundamental codebase open source, Microsoft is giving .NET developers an incredible opportunity to enter into areas with their existing skills which were previously locked off to them. The opportunities presented are only going to start to emerge over the next months and years - it's well worth your while checking it out and taking .NET Core for a spin. Now, certainly it's possible that you are correct, and these are all parts of the misinformation derived from the early days of C# and .Net. If so, could you provide some references? Otherwise it's very easy for me to conclude that you misremember the historical details.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]