4 ms·

>Pity that they didn't go with AOT compiled .NET, though. I was trying ot push .net as our possible language for somehow high performance executables. Seeing t

>Pity that they didn't go with AOT compiled .NET, though. I was trying ot push .net as our possible language for somehow high performance executables. Seeing this means I'll stop trying to advocate for it. If even this team doesn't believe in it.

criddell 2y ago
That makes sense if your project has similar constraints and requirements. I like when Microsoft doesn't pretend that their technologies are the right answer for every problem.
surajrmal 2y ago
They cited code style and porting as reasons to use go over c#, not performance.
- rat9988 2y ago
  I didn't say it was very performance critical, go and c# are both good enough for us in this regard. The problem is that, when evaluating the whole thing, they decided against c#, that is problematic here.
  - nipah 2y ago
    But they not stated it is <because> of C#'s performance, so I don't think this is THAT problematic. But I agree that it would be fine to see them dogfeeding on their language for such a massive project, and a project that is even related to TypeScript (as it inspired it in some features), it is a shame they don't do it, but it is also the case for many of their projects (like, they are even pushing react native for apps nowadays), so I think at some level it's really fine.
    - rat9988 2y ago
      > But they not stated it is <because> of C#'s performance But I just said my point is not about performance at all! It is about the whole package. Performance of c# and go are both enough for my usecase, same for java and c obviously. They just told us that they don't think the whole package makes sense, and disowned the AOT compilation.
      - nipah 2y ago
        But you said: > I was trying ot push .net as our possible language for somehow high performance executables. Seeing this means I'll stop trying to advocate for it. If even this team doesn't believe in it. Which made me naturally think your point was, indeed, about performance. Although as it appears to be, I'm wrong, so it's fair enough.
- rs186 2y ago
  Also cross platform support
madeofpalk 2y ago
One unrelated team at Microsoft doesn't 'believe' in .NET is enough to make you change direction?
- 9rx 2y ago
  More specifically, the guy who created C# doesn't believe in it (for this particular project). But, of course, that is not unusual. There is no language in existence that is best suited to every project out there.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    And true wisdom is realising that. I have a lot of respect for this fellow and his decisions.
    - rat9988 2y ago
      You can have respect for this and his decisions and still think it is doesn't look good for c#.

criddell 2y ago

That makes sense if your project has similar constraints and requirements. I like when Microsoft doesn't pretend that their technologies are the right answer for every problem.

surajrmal 2y ago

They cited code style and porting as reasons to use go over c#, not performance.

rat9988 2y ago
I didn't say it was very performance critical, go and c# are both good enough for us in this regard. The problem is that, when evaluating the whole thing, they decided against c#, that is problematic here.
- nipah 2y ago
  But they not stated it is <because> of C#'s performance, so I don't think this is THAT problematic. But I agree that it would be fine to see them dogfeeding on their language for such a massive project, and a project that is even related to TypeScript (as it inspired it in some features), it is a shame they don't do it, but it is also the case for many of their projects (like, they are even pushing react native for apps nowadays), so I think at some level it's really fine.
  - rat9988 2y ago
    > But they not stated it is <because> of C#'s performance But I just said my point is not about performance at all! It is about the whole package. Performance of c# and go are both enough for my usecase, same for java and c obviously. They just told us that they don't think the whole package makes sense, and disowned the AOT compilation.
    - nipah 2y ago
      But you said: > I was trying ot push .net as our possible language for somehow high performance executables. Seeing this means I'll stop trying to advocate for it. If even this team doesn't believe in it. Which made me naturally think your point was, indeed, about performance. Although as it appears to be, I'm wrong, so it's fair enough.
rs186 2y ago
Also cross platform support

madeofpalk 2y ago

One unrelated team at Microsoft doesn't 'believe' in .NET is enough to make you change direction?

9rx 2y ago
More specifically, the guy who created C# doesn't believe in it (for this particular project). But, of course, that is not unusual. There is no language in existence that is best suited to every project out there.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  And true wisdom is realising that. I have a lot of respect for this fellow and his decisions.
  - rat9988 2y ago
    You can have respect for this and his decisions and still think it is doesn't look good for c#.