3 ms·

This article is a garbage rewrite of the original blog[1]. It misses a boatload of detail and even gets some details wrong along the way (Like the fact .NET isn

This article is a garbage rewrite of the original blog[1]. It misses a boatload of detail and even gets some details wrong along the way (Like the fact .NET isn’t actually running on DOS) [1] https://medium.com/@MStrehovsky/building-a-self-contained-game-in-c-under-8-kilobytes-74c3cf60ea04 https://medium.com/@MStrehovsky/building-a-self-contained-ga...

jve 7y ago
2 days ago, he merged a pull request that adds DOS support: https://github.com/MichalStrehovsky/SeeSharpSnake/pull/5 https://github.com/MichalStrehovsky/SeeSharpSnake/pull/5 Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240
- cwyers 7y ago
  Parent's point, I think, is that technically .NET isn't running on DOS, just C# AOT compiled. In other words, the standard library isn't being used.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    No different than using freestanding C, C++ or whatever.
mehrdada 7y ago
+1. Thanks for the link to the actual article. Don't know why this is downvoted. Clearly more insightful than the MS advertisement spin of the article. Perhaps the original link should be replaced with it.
- jve 7y ago
  Few days ago, original article was already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22010159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22010159
  - benaadams 7y ago
    That article isn't about running on Windows 3.11 and DOS; that article is about shrinking the executable size to under 8kB
- benaadams 7y ago
  Because its a different article. The first one is about shrinking to under 8Kb. This is about running on Windows 3.11
manigandham 7y ago
It's not a rewrite. Scott Hanselman is a very popular and well-liked evangelist in the .NET community. He's highlighting Michal's project to his large audience with several links to the original work throughout the post.
- pushpop 7y ago
  ...which still makes it a rewrite. :) Scott maybe respected but this particular article doesn’t add anything. The original is a much better read.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That's a disingenuous definition. Obviously the original is a "better" read because it's the full project being featured. Scott's article summarized and intro'd the project to people who never saw the original, including the person who posted it here on HN. That's adding quite a lot of value. Why are you so intent on putting down Scott's post?
    - pushpop 7y ago
      I think there’s some bias going on here. Any other blog on any other subject and I’m sure you’d be the first to say “link to the original rather than the summary”. In fact people not linking to the original work is popular complaint on here. The fact this is Scott’s blog shouldn’t change anything and even you have agreed that the original is better. So why are you arguing as if it’s me who’s making this personal? Anyway, I’m glad you got something from it. I personally didn’t, which is why I made my initial post, but I did find the original source to be really well written and thought others might prefer that too.
benaadams 7y ago
Its a substantially different article mostly about running on Windows 3.1; whereas the first is about shrinking the executable under 8 kilobytes (but not DOS). And yes the game now runs on MS-DOS 5.0 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240 > 1/n It has always bugged me that I can't run my 64-bit C# games on MS-DOS. Today I fixed that. A thread.

jve 7y ago

2 days ago, he merged a pull request that adds DOS support: https://github.com/MichalStrehovsky/SeeSharpSnake/pull/5 https://github.com/MichalStrehovsky/SeeSharpSnake/pull/5 Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240

cwyers 7y ago
Parent's point, I think, is that technically .NET isn't running on DOS, just C# AOT compiled. In other words, the standard library isn't being used.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  No different than using freestanding C, C++ or whatever.

mehrdada 7y ago

+1. Thanks for the link to the actual article. Don't know why this is downvoted. Clearly more insightful than the MS advertisement spin of the article. Perhaps the original link should be replaced with it.

jve 7y ago
Few days ago, original article was already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22010159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22010159
- benaadams 7y ago
  That article isn't about running on Windows 3.11 and DOS; that article is about shrinking the executable size to under 8kB
benaadams 7y ago
Because its a different article. The first one is about shrinking to under 8Kb. This is about running on Windows 3.11

manigandham 7y ago

It's not a rewrite. Scott Hanselman is a very popular and well-liked evangelist in the .NET community. He's highlighting Michal's project to his large audience with several links to the original work throughout the post.

pushpop 7y ago
...which still makes it a rewrite. :) Scott maybe respected but this particular article doesn’t add anything. The original is a much better read.
- manigandham 7y ago
  That's a disingenuous definition. Obviously the original is a "better" read because it's the full project being featured. Scott's article summarized and intro'd the project to people who never saw the original, including the person who posted it here on HN. That's adding quite a lot of value. Why are you so intent on putting down Scott's post?
  - pushpop 7y ago
    I think there’s some bias going on here. Any other blog on any other subject and I’m sure you’d be the first to say “link to the original rather than the summary”. In fact people not linking to the original work is popular complaint on here. The fact this is Scott’s blog shouldn’t change anything and even you have agreed that the original is better. So why are you arguing as if it’s me who’s making this personal? Anyway, I’m glad you got something from it. I personally didn’t, which is why I made my initial post, but I did find the original source to be really well written and thought others might prefer that too.

benaadams 7y ago

Its a substantially different article mostly about running on Windows 3.1; whereas the first is about shrinking the executable under 8 kilobytes (but not DOS). And yes the game now runs on MS-DOS 5.0 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240 > 1/n It has always bugged me that I can't run my 64-bit C# games on MS-DOS. Today I fixed that. A thread.