4 ms·

There'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 ago
There’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 ago
  Similarly 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      There is a version for UWP as well.
      - jolux 6y ago
        Really? What’s it called?
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Similarly 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 ago
        Neat! I would definitely like a .NET Core version, though. I was disappointed to discover netmodules were deprecated
rdhatt 6y ago
Typically, 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 ago
  I'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 ago
It'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.

sbelskie 6y ago

There’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 ago
Similarly 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    There is a version for UWP as well.
    - jolux 6y ago
      Really? What’s it called?
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Similarly 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 ago
        Neat! I would definitely like a .NET Core version, though. I was disappointed to discover netmodules were deprecated

rdhatt 6y ago

Typically, 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 ago
I'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 ago

It'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.