4 ms·

but Go and C# are basically occupying the same space... if even MS isn't doing C# for a project like this, it's basically a death knell for C#.

afavour 2y ago
That logic gets to the core of what I'm saying: it's "use C# because it's good for C#", not "use C# because it's good for TypeScript".
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I think whimsicalism's point may be that, if C# isn't the tool of choice for this port, then that's the death knell of C#. The death knell isn't what kills it; that's the death blow. The death knell is sounded after it's dead. If C# wasn't the choice here, then C# is already dead. That may be overstating how dead C# is. But I think it is accurate to whimsicalism's point.
  - Redoubts 2y ago
    That might be their point, but it’s a bad implication for why languages get picked
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Languages are languages, so having lots of people to communicate with using them is pretty important. Most people don't want to learn Latin.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I'm not even really making an argument for C#, more just what it signals for C#. I am not a C# lover (although I also don't really love love Go).
wiseowise 2y ago
One wants to be a better Java, another wants to be a better C. Where do they occupy the same space?
klodolph 2y ago
I could write a whole article on this, but my take on this is that Go occupies one space, and Java and C# occupy a different space. This happens despite the checklist similarity between these languages.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Generally, I see Go replacing a lot of projects that would have previously been written in Java (namely network services/backends). Compiler is a bit of an exception, for sure.
  - klodolph 2y ago
    Yes… there’s a lot of overlapping territory, for sure. Just like how Java relaces a lot of projects that would have previously been written in C++ or C.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      > like how Java relaces a lot of projects that would have previously been written in C++ hearing of this pains me
      - jillyboel 2y ago
        Cheaper and safer software pains you?
        esseph 2y ago
        That's assuming it's cheaper and works, which in my experience is asking a LOT of the run of the mill Java dev.
        jillyboel 2y ago
        The amount of CVEs for C++ apps is off the charts compared to java lol
ClikeX 2y ago
I don't think C# is being harmed by Typescript not being ported to it. There are a lot of companies that have used C# for years, and will continue to do so. They don't care if the TS compiler is not built with it.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  There was a movement for C# to be a real developer language that is bonafide cross-platform. If Microsoft is citing cross-platform reasons to not dev with C#.... New companies aren't generally starting with Microsoft as their OS, these 'lots of companies' are legacy/enterprise stragglers and/or European.
  - ClikeX 2y ago
    > and/or European That explains a lot then, because I see a lot of C# still around here. Even for new projects.
osigurdson 2y ago
I don't think so. It isn't as if C# isn't competitive in many spaces. However, honestly, if you want to create a simple cli app, Go is a better choice than C#. With C#, you would either need to bundle .NET or try to use AOT features which will either make for a huge executable or development friction. With Go, that is just how it works out of the box so I get it from that standpoint. I still don't understand their rationale for not using Rust however. This is going to be run millions of times a day by web devs - it makes sense to make it as fast as possible. Optimizing for similarity of codebases doesn't seem right imo, and a dubious position to begin with as Go and Typescript aren't that similar anyway.
- Izikiel43 2y ago
  > Optimizing for similarity of codebases doesn't seem right imo, It's simple, it's cheaper and faster (Time to market) to do Go than Rust. Rust has a pretty high learning curve, and there aren't many people writing it internally in MSFT I guess. Go's syntax is literally C + Python, from my previous experience, ramping up is a pretty fast affair as an experienced dev.

afavour 2y ago

That logic gets to the core of what I'm saying: it's "use C# because it's good for C#", not "use C# because it's good for TypeScript".

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I think whimsicalism's point may be that, if C# isn't the tool of choice for this port, then that's the death knell of C#. The death knell isn't what kills it; that's the death blow. The death knell is sounded after it's dead. If C# wasn't the choice here, then C# is already dead. That may be overstating how dead C# is. But I think it is accurate to whimsicalism's point.
- Redoubts 2y ago
  That might be their point, but it’s a bad implication for why languages get picked
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Languages are languages, so having lots of people to communicate with using them is pretty important. Most people don't want to learn Latin.
whimsicalism 2y ago
I'm not even really making an argument for C#, more just what it signals for C#. I am not a C# lover (although I also don't really love love Go).

wiseowise 2y ago

One wants to be a better Java, another wants to be a better C. Where do they occupy the same space?

klodolph 2y ago

I could write a whole article on this, but my take on this is that Go occupies one space, and Java and C# occupy a different space. This happens despite the checklist similarity between these languages.

whimsicalism 2y ago
Generally, I see Go replacing a lot of projects that would have previously been written in Java (namely network services/backends). Compiler is a bit of an exception, for sure.
- klodolph 2y ago
  Yes… there’s a lot of overlapping territory, for sure. Just like how Java relaces a lot of projects that would have previously been written in C++ or C.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > like how Java relaces a lot of projects that would have previously been written in C++ hearing of this pains me
    - jillyboel 2y ago
      Cheaper and safer software pains you?
      - esseph 2y ago
        That's assuming it's cheaper and works, which in my experience is asking a LOT of the run of the mill Java dev.
        jillyboel 2y ago
        The amount of CVEs for C++ apps is off the charts compared to java lol

ClikeX 2y ago

I don't think C# is being harmed by Typescript not being ported to it. There are a lot of companies that have used C# for years, and will continue to do so. They don't care if the TS compiler is not built with it.

whimsicalism 2y ago
There was a movement for C# to be a real developer language that is bonafide cross-platform. If Microsoft is citing cross-platform reasons to not dev with C#.... New companies aren't generally starting with Microsoft as their OS, these 'lots of companies' are legacy/enterprise stragglers and/or European.
- ClikeX 2y ago
  > and/or European That explains a lot then, because I see a lot of C# still around here. Even for new projects.

osigurdson 2y ago

I don't think so. It isn't as if C# isn't competitive in many spaces. However, honestly, if you want to create a simple cli app, Go is a better choice than C#. With C#, you would either need to bundle .NET or try to use AOT features which will either make for a huge executable or development friction. With Go, that is just how it works out of the box so I get it from that standpoint. I still don't understand their rationale for not using Rust however. This is going to be run millions of times a day by web devs - it makes sense to make it as fast as possible. Optimizing for similarity of codebases doesn't seem right imo, and a dubious position to begin with as Go and Typescript aren't that similar anyway.

Izikiel43 2y ago
> Optimizing for similarity of codebases doesn't seem right imo, It's simple, it's cheaper and faster (Time to market) to do Go than Rust. Rust has a pretty high learning curve, and there aren't many people writing it internally in MSFT I guess. Go's syntax is literally C + Python, from my previous experience, ramping up is a pretty fast affair as an experienced dev.