3 ms·

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

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 And so on that note, much of that information on the Wiki page is outdated by at least a decade.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.
- indubitable 9y ago
  Sure, here's an article from Microsoft describing how to access and view the source code for their library implementation, ASP/ADO/Forms/etc: https://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/net-framework-library-source-code-now-available https://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/net-framework-library-source... That's from January 2008. This release is specifically what enabled Mono to really go to the next level, more than a decade ago. You can even see the little 'carve out' they made in the license to ensure Mono, in particular, could use the code down in the 'Reference License' section. You're making a reasonable mistake of confusing .NET Core with the .NET Framework. They're different things. .NET Core is a new development that is not directly compatible with applications relying on the .NET Framework. As you can read on the blog post you linked to, .NET core was announced as open source before it was released -- which was 2015. Its implementation and technologies being open sourced is something altogether different.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    The link you gave is indeed to view the source. It is not, however, an open source license, as characterized by the OSI or DFSG, nor free software as characterized by FSF. Here is the license - https://referencesource.microsoft.com/license.html https://referencesource.microsoft.com/license.html . It contains obviously non-open source clauses like: > "Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company. Microsoft agrees that (quoting from a quote in my earlier comment) "the source code was available since Rotor but we didn’t use an OSI approved open source license, which made Rotor a non-starter". Like I said, I know little about this topic. However, I think you do not understand what open source means. I'm pretty sure that when woolvalley used the phrase "It has been for the longest time been a closed source MSFT only thing", that "closed source" meant "not open source according to OSI or similar guidelines." Not "available in source code form", which is what you seem to think it means.
    - indubitable 9y ago

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.

indubitable 9y ago
Sure, here's an article from Microsoft describing how to access and view the source code for their library implementation, ASP/ADO/Forms/etc: https://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/net-framework-library-source-code-now-available https://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/net-framework-library-source... That's from January 2008. This release is specifically what enabled Mono to really go to the next level, more than a decade ago. You can even see the little 'carve out' they made in the license to ensure Mono, in particular, could use the code down in the 'Reference License' section. You're making a reasonable mistake of confusing .NET Core with the .NET Framework. They're different things. .NET Core is a new development that is not directly compatible with applications relying on the .NET Framework. As you can read on the blog post you linked to, .NET core was announced as open source before it was released -- which was 2015. Its implementation and technologies being open sourced is something altogether different.
- eesmith 9y ago
  The link you gave is indeed to view the source. It is not, however, an open source license, as characterized by the OSI or DFSG, nor free software as characterized by FSF. Here is the license - https://referencesource.microsoft.com/license.html https://referencesource.microsoft.com/license.html . It contains obviously non-open source clauses like: > "Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company. Microsoft agrees that (quoting from a quote in my earlier comment) "the source code was available since Rotor but we didn’t use an OSI approved open source license, which made Rotor a non-starter". Like I said, I know little about this topic. However, I think you do not understand what open source means. I'm pretty sure that when woolvalley used the phrase "It has been for the longest time been a closed source MSFT only thing", that "closed source" meant "not open source according to OSI or similar guidelines." Not "available in source code form", which is what you seem to think it means.
  - indubitable 9y ago