3 ms·
It’s owned by Microsoft. A strong case can be made that this is significantly worse. Screw them both. Use Rust.
by revscat 4y ago
It’s owned by Microsoft. A strong case can be made that this is significantly worse.
Screw them both. Use Rust.
- pasc1878 4y agoMS worse than Sun yes. MS worse than Oracle, really?
- retrocryptid 4y agoI have been a MSFT customer and an ORCL customer. While both do things to you that cannot be described in polite company, MSFT at least buys you dinner first.
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago> It’s owned by Microsoft It was owned by MS, but the entire .NET ecosystem has since been open-sourced and released with a permissive MIT licence. It is managed by the .NET Foundation[1]. [1]: https://dotnetfoundation.org/ https://dotnetfoundation.org/
- SeanLuke 4y agoThe MIT license is worth nothing because it does not contain a patent release. Microsoft's sword of damocles has always been in patents they held with regard to C# and .NET. Have they released this IP as well?
- fsckboy 4y agoI'm no defender of Microsoft, but haven't they said "if you don't sue them, they won't sue you type of thing"? also, that doesn't make this code or the license worth nothing.
- marcosdumay 4y agoMostly yes, screw them both. But keep in mind that if you are looking for an alternative for Java or C#, Rust is probably not your best choice. Rust is great for code that you would have to write in C or C++, but if you can write it in Java, you probably want something else.
- retrocryptid 4y agoWhich Rust? They keep changing it. It's like the python of compiled languages.