5 ms·
If you read one person about dotnet, this is the person. If you read two, include David Fowler.
by sbelskie 6y ago
If you read one person about dotnet, this is the person. If you read two, include David Fowler.
- manigandham 6y agoThere's a lot of great people in the .NET ecosystem, but I don't think GC internals are that relevant for most typical .NET devs.
- sbelskie 6y agoThere’s definitely more there than most .NET devs need to know, but I personally have found learning more about the GC to be incredibly relevant in my day to day work. I would have said the same thing a year ago, now I feel differently, but that is of course heavily inflected by my personal experience.
- jolux 6y agoSimilarly you might not expect that reading CLR via C# would make you a better programmer at a high level with things like DI and big frameworks and everything, but it makes you see what you're writing in an entirely different light. A whole other layer below the surface.
- sbelskie 6y agoI would strongly second that endorsement. I would love a new edition taking the CoreCLR more into account but it’s still more relevant than most any other book I can think of.
- pjmlp 6y agoThere is a version for UWP as well.
- jolux 6y agoReally? What’s it called?
- pjmlp 6y agoSimilarly named, Windows Runtime via C#. https://www.amazon.com/Windows-Runtime-via-Developer-Reference/dp/0735679274 https://www.amazon.com/Windows-Runtime-via-Developer-Referen...
- jolux 6y agoNeat! I would definitely like a .NET Core version, though. I was disappointed to discover netmodules were deprecated
- rdhatt 6y agoTypically, you're right - GC internals aren't usually relevant. That is, until you're fire-fighting a GC-related issue in production. GC internals aren't something you want do a crash-course on while your app burns.
- vsareto 6y agoI'd call it a good sign if you can even identify GC-related issues in production. That means all of the other problems that seem to plague .NET shops have been taken care of.
- gwbas1c 6y agoIt's always a captivating read for me! I find most discussions about the tradeoffs of GC vs reference counting versus manual memory management are loaded with bias.
- bhandziuk 6y agoYou're selling Eric Lippert too short
- sbelskie 6y agoJust offering my personal opinions (by which I mean biases), Eric is also great. Andrew Lock and Steve Gordon are also great choices. Personally, I prefer nuts and bolts .NET writers since there is so much (and much of it good!) DDD/SOLID type content out there.
- jolux 6y agoJon Skeet, Mark Seemann, Jeff Richter too
- snypox 6y agoStephen Toub!
- vyrotek 6y agoMany more great .NET folks to follow on this list as well. https://twitter.com/i/lists/120961876 https://twitter.com/i/lists/120961876
- DylanDmitri 6y agoI worked with David Fowler he’s really good.
- higerordermap 6y agoMatt Warren writes a lot of nice stuff about .NET internals and performance.
- chokolad 6y agoIf you read one person about .Net GC performance - Maoni is that person.
- tester34 6y agoIf you read three, include Stephen Toub Why? >https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/graphs/contributors https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/graphs/contributors
- snak 6y agoFour, include Marc Gravell. https://blog.marcgravell.com/ https://blog.marcgravell.com/