5 ms·

I suppose you didn't read the link. It's not complaining about usability of deployed .NET apps on Linux, it's complaining about the openness of the tooling and

by bbkane 2y ago

I suppose you didn't read the link. It's not complaining about usability of deployed .NET apps on Linux, it's complaining about the openness of the tooling and community of the .NET ecosystem.

neonsunset 2y ago
I'm very well aware of it. It's mostly attention-seeking bait taking Miguel de Icaza's already critical posts (the only kind shared by his twitter/mastodon persona) even further out of context. You are not arguing this from PoV of evaluating .NET as a technology or seeking to better the software ecosystem, you just found a convenient content for the arguments of your messages. It's known, solved, not new, and people carry on using Rider and VSC as usual.
- bbkane 2y ago
  > You are not arguing this from PoV of evaluating .NET as a technology or seeking to better the software ecosystem I am evaluating .NET from exactly this perspective, and I heavily consider ecosystem openness in that evaluation. .NET has an undeniably more closed-source ecosystem than competitors like Go or Rust or Python. It's fine if you don't think ecosystem openness is as important as I do, that's a totally valid perspective. I'm sorry if my post comes across as implying the way I think is "the only valid perspective" on how to choose a tech stack. My intent was just to answer the OP's question about the openness of the IDE.
  - neonsunset 2y ago
    Except the response ignores the fact that the posted links have little to do with the openness of the ecosystem. .NET does not restrict who can use which APIs nor they are designed in a way to prevent the use of "third-parties". e.g. VS and VSC debugger implementations are not the only one that exist, Rider uses its own, there is a Samsung-maintained open debugger and likely a few more specialized ones I'm unaware of. There also exists Unity which is moving over to CoreCLR, it is certain they have fully custom tooling. There are also areas that may not be as open as they could be, which yet simply do not exist in other languages - for example Go and GUI frameworks (.NET's AvaloniaUI works well on Linux, while MAUI doesn't at all even though there seems to be now work done in that area, you can also use Gir.Core to write GTK4 applications). Hot reload drama is uncharacteristically bad, that is true, but it's a minor feature that happens to be a convenient scapegoat repeated ad nauseam. If anything, your comments only support my argument that C# receives criticism regardless of improvements that it gets, while Swift and Go receive undeserved good will regardless of the actions conducted by companies investing in them. I should probably learn my lesson and stop arguing with engineers engaged in this kind of double-standards thinking repeating the same old statements that lost relevance.
    - banashark 2y ago
      I think the links are tangential to the openness. I think most agree that the watch debacle was bad, but what I (and from what I can tell others) may see from that is that the conspiracy theories of "M$ will close it back up as soon as they can capture the users" might have more weight to it than just conjecture, and is clearly out of the hands of anyone in DevDiv. Rebuilding trust is hard, and Microsoft is going to have a hard time reaching escape-velocity from EEE if there are things like this that continue to pop up. The other links where open source projects got moved into the private GH org (and causing issues with github sponsor money going towards the OSS contributors) is also pretty bad. The other divisions aren't helping with things like ads in the Windows start menu, etc. I'm sure there are other companies that would pull off an open-source heist if they could (I keep an eye on things like GraalVM license changes to see whenever that rug-pull might happen), but agree that because of its past, Microsoft is under a finer microscope than others and the perspective is clouded by what the rest of the company does. This all being said, I think C# and dotnet as technologies receive quite a bit of praise on HN and other platforms whenever they come up. The threads that make it to the front page about performance improvements and such are usually 80% praise.

by bbkane 2y ago

I suppose you didn't read the link. It's not complaining about usability of deployed .NET apps on Linux, it's complaining about the openness of the tooling and community of the .NET ecosystem.

neonsunset 2y ago

I'm very well aware of it. It's mostly attention-seeking bait taking Miguel de Icaza's already critical posts (the only kind shared by his twitter/mastodon persona) even further out of context. You are not arguing this from PoV of evaluating .NET as a technology or seeking to better the software ecosystem, you just found a convenient content for the arguments of your messages. It's known, solved, not new, and people carry on using Rider and VSC as usual.

bbkane 2y ago
> You are not arguing this from PoV of evaluating .NET as a technology or seeking to better the software ecosystem I am evaluating .NET from exactly this perspective, and I heavily consider ecosystem openness in that evaluation. .NET has an undeniably more closed-source ecosystem than competitors like Go or Rust or Python. It's fine if you don't think ecosystem openness is as important as I do, that's a totally valid perspective. I'm sorry if my post comes across as implying the way I think is "the only valid perspective" on how to choose a tech stack. My intent was just to answer the OP's question about the openness of the IDE.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  Except the response ignores the fact that the posted links have little to do with the openness of the ecosystem. .NET does not restrict who can use which APIs nor they are designed in a way to prevent the use of "third-parties". e.g. VS and VSC debugger implementations are not the only one that exist, Rider uses its own, there is a Samsung-maintained open debugger and likely a few more specialized ones I'm unaware of. There also exists Unity which is moving over to CoreCLR, it is certain they have fully custom tooling. There are also areas that may not be as open as they could be, which yet simply do not exist in other languages - for example Go and GUI frameworks (.NET's AvaloniaUI works well on Linux, while MAUI doesn't at all even though there seems to be now work done in that area, you can also use Gir.Core to write GTK4 applications). Hot reload drama is uncharacteristically bad, that is true, but it's a minor feature that happens to be a convenient scapegoat repeated ad nauseam. If anything, your comments only support my argument that C# receives criticism regardless of improvements that it gets, while Swift and Go receive undeserved good will regardless of the actions conducted by companies investing in them. I should probably learn my lesson and stop arguing with engineers engaged in this kind of double-standards thinking repeating the same old statements that lost relevance.
  - banashark 2y ago
    I think the links are tangential to the openness. I think most agree that the watch debacle was bad, but what I (and from what I can tell others) may see from that is that the conspiracy theories of "M$ will close it back up as soon as they can capture the users" might have more weight to it than just conjecture, and is clearly out of the hands of anyone in DevDiv. Rebuilding trust is hard, and Microsoft is going to have a hard time reaching escape-velocity from EEE if there are things like this that continue to pop up. The other links where open source projects got moved into the private GH org (and causing issues with github sponsor money going towards the OSS contributors) is also pretty bad. The other divisions aren't helping with things like ads in the Windows start menu, etc. I'm sure there are other companies that would pull off an open-source heist if they could (I keep an eye on things like GraalVM license changes to see whenever that rug-pull might happen), but agree that because of its past, Microsoft is under a finer microscope than others and the perspective is clouded by what the rest of the company does. This all being said, I think C# and dotnet as technologies receive quite a bit of praise on HN and other platforms whenever they come up. The threads that make it to the front page about performance improvements and such are usually 80% praise.