16 ms·

Microsoft Updates Visual Studio

119 points by kanche 13y ago

malkia 13y ago
Plugin developers are delighted - yet one more runtime version to support! Nice move Microsoft!
InclinedPlane 13y ago
.Net native code compilation, aka static linking for the .net age. This feature is a LOOOOONG time coming, they should have had it available a decade ago. P.S. Mark my words, this is going to be a huge deal. Especially since MS is acquiring Xamarin, which basically does the same thing, but for mobile platforms. With the ability to develop in .net languages and still deliver a plain-jane .exe that doesn't require jitting it'll open up a lot of new opportunities. Especially if they start targeting non-windows platforms like linux, iOS, and android with fully-baked tools. Imagine how much more popular C# would be if it wasn't tied to the Windows platform? And if you could choose whether or not you wanted to ship a small managed exe or a fat native exe that launched quickly?
- TillE 13y ago
  > Imagine how much more popular C# would be if it wasn't tied to the Windows platform? It's not. Recent versions of Mono are quite good. You will have to pay Xamarin at least $299/year to deploy on iOS or Android, though.
- bigdubs 13y ago
  > Especially since MS is acquiring Xamarin Is this certain? Was it announced?
  - majc2 13y ago
    No, just widely speculated.
- snarfy 13y ago
  Doesn't .NET already have native code compilation using NGEN? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Image_Generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Image_Generator
  - alkonaut 13y ago
    Technically, yes, but for most situations, no. The requirement that ngen'ed assemblies must be in the GAC makes it very far from the "compile what you want to native" tool I'd like to see.
    - emn13 13y ago
      ngen is also client-side, which makes for slow, complex installs, as opposed to simply running an executable.
    - iso8859-1 13y ago
      is it comparable with GCJ?
- edwinyzh 13y ago
  The inherent slowness of .net is the ONLY reason that I'm sticking with Delphi... It'll be a dream if we'll be able to compile .net/c# programs into native and runs FAST!
  - edwinyzh 13y ago
    well, to those whom downvoted, I wish you can convince me, since I really want to enjoy the power of visual studio and the richness of .net libraries.
  - edwinyzh 13y ago
    well, by "It'll be a dream " I actually meant "I dream of being able to native compile c# app for the desktop". Sorry for the bad English.
gamesurgeon 13y ago
There are rumors that Microsoft is considering the purchase of Xamarin [1]. And now Microsoft is now previewing their .NET AOT compiler for X64 and ARM. I see great things in C#/.NET's future in mobile and cross platform development. On another note, I wonder if Microsoft addressed the inherent limitations of AOT in C# [2]. I wonder if it's a compile-time error, or if that segment of code is interpreted. I doubt it's interpreted, as that's a giant perf loss. [1] http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-reportedly-considering-acquisition-xamarin http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-reportedly-considering-ac... [2] http://www.mono-project.com/AOT#Limitation:_Generic_Interface_Instantiation http://www.mono-project.com/AOT#Limitation:_Generic_Interfac...
- nutjob123 13y ago
  Are they even still rumors? I thought that had been announced.
  - gamesurgeon 13y ago
    To my knowledge it's a rumor.
  - jeroen 13y ago
    This seems to be the sole source of those rumors: http://www.crn.com/news/mobility/300072056/sources-microsoft-in-talks-to-acquire-mobile-app-development-startup-xamarin.htm http://www.crn.com/news/mobility/300072056/sources-microsoft... "Microsoft is in the final stages of negotiations that could lead to either an acquisition or major investment in Xamarin, sources with knowledge of the discussions told CRN recently." The article is from march 17th and there doesn't seem to be anything newer.
- untog 13y ago
  If MS buy Xamarin then it'll be a fantastic validation for a team that was dumped by Novell not so long ago. I'm also very excited about the idea of getting back into C# again. I always loved the language, but moved away from the .NET stack. Here's hoping.
- keithwarren 13y ago
pjmlp 13y ago
Native compilation! This are great news. Never got the point why Java and .NET adopted a VM approach, back in the days when we already had safe systems programming languages like Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Ada, Delphi with AOT compilers on their canonical toolchains.
- andymcsherry 13y ago
  The purpose of using a VM is that the developer ships one version of their compiled software that can be run by anyone who has the VM on their system. Otherwise, the developer needs to anticipate every single architecture a user might want to run it on. They might not be able to anticipate all these cases which might not even exist yet.
  - sneak 13y ago
    A fat binary with both common native architectures and also vm code would seemingly take care of this edge case, no? Also, what's wrong with emulation?
    - emn13 13y ago
      It's slow, complex, and unnecessary?
      - sneak 13y ago
        What about when it's a machine for which hardware doesn't actually exist... like a virtual one? How is that less unnecessary?
        emn13 13y ago
        I wouldn't call a JIT compiler an emulator. However, it's certainly unnecessary (why not just generate the machine code already?), and it generates slower code because JIT compiling is a more difficult task due to the fact that the time limits on the optimizer itself are pretty harsh.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
But does it support inline x64 assembly yet?
- pjmlp 13y ago
  It never will, it is a design decision. Even Intel pushes for intrinsics.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    Those don't do the same thing.
    - teacup50 13y ago
      They don't, but they're a lot saner to deal with. I don't even use inline assembly where it's supported; all the magic of a compiler, all the foot shooting of assembly, none of the transparency of either. I'm happy either using intrinsics, or implementing assembly in separate .S files; I can't recall the last time my avoidance of inline assembly prevented me from implementing something I needed.
sergiotapia 13y ago
Looks like I'm going start reading up on C# again! It's been a good 4 years without touching .NET but these developments make my want to try a hand in mobile Windows 8 development.
mtVessel 13y ago
And yet, we still can't get menu labels that don't make me wonder if it's 1986 again.
- mtVessel 13y ago
  What, too soon?
frozenport 13y ago
I'm sticking with 2012, until 2013 stops crashing!
- frozenport 13y ago
  Why am I being downvoted? I can't use VS 2013 because it is unstable... I wonder if there are MS saboteurs among us.
Taurenking 13y ago
if only Visual Studio runned in other os's...as a matter of fact i know many developers stick with windows JUST because of vs...
simonswords82 13y ago
This confirms to me that as a software agency we were right to stick with C# even when it was "uncool" and there were plenty of new kids on the block (I'm looking at you RoR). There were a number of times when I wondered if we had backed the wrong horse in Microsoft but being able to gain traction on mobile development (assuming the Xamarin purchase goes ahead) and other changes such as native compilation makes me happy with stuck with them.

119 points by kanche 13y ago

Plugin developers are delighted - yet one more runtime version to support! Nice move Microsoft!

.Net native code compilation, aka static linking for the .net age. This feature is a LOOOOONG time coming, they should have had it available a decade ago. P.S. Mark my words, this is going to be a huge deal. Especially since MS is acquiring Xamarin, which basically does the same thing, but for mobile platforms. With the ability to develop in .net languages and still deliver a plain-jane .exe that doesn't require jitting it'll open up a lot of new opportunities. Especially if they start targeting non-windows platforms like linux, iOS, and android with fully-baked tools. Imagine how much more popular C# would be if it wasn't tied to the Windows platform? And if you could choose whether or not you wanted to ship a small managed exe or a fat native exe that launched quickly?

TillE 13y ago
> Imagine how much more popular C# would be if it wasn't tied to the Windows platform? It's not. Recent versions of Mono are quite good. You will have to pay Xamarin at least $299/year to deploy on iOS or Android, though.
bigdubs 13y ago
> Especially since MS is acquiring Xamarin Is this certain? Was it announced?
- majc2 13y ago
  No, just widely speculated.
snarfy 13y ago
Doesn't .NET already have native code compilation using NGEN? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Image_Generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Image_Generator
- alkonaut 13y ago
  Technically, yes, but for most situations, no. The requirement that ngen'ed assemblies must be in the GAC makes it very far from the "compile what you want to native" tool I'd like to see.
  - emn13 13y ago
    ngen is also client-side, which makes for slow, complex installs, as opposed to simply running an executable.
  - iso8859-1 13y ago
    is it comparable with GCJ?
edwinyzh 13y ago
The inherent slowness of .net is the ONLY reason that I'm sticking with Delphi... It'll be a dream if we'll be able to compile .net/c# programs into native and runs FAST!
- edwinyzh 13y ago
  well, to those whom downvoted, I wish you can convince me, since I really want to enjoy the power of visual studio and the richness of .net libraries.
- edwinyzh 13y ago
  well, by "It'll be a dream " I actually meant "I dream of being able to native compile c# app for the desktop". Sorry for the bad English.

gamesurgeon 13y ago

There are rumors that Microsoft is considering the purchase of Xamarin [1]. And now Microsoft is now previewing their .NET AOT compiler for X64 and ARM. I see great things in C#/.NET's future in mobile and cross platform development. On another note, I wonder if Microsoft addressed the inherent limitations of AOT in C# [2]. I wonder if it's a compile-time error, or if that segment of code is interpreted. I doubt it's interpreted, as that's a giant perf loss. [1] http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-reportedly-considering-acquisition-xamarin http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-reportedly-considering-ac... [2] http://www.mono-project.com/AOT#Limitation:_Generic_Interface_Instantiation http://www.mono-project.com/AOT#Limitation:_Generic_Interfac...

nutjob123 13y ago
Are they even still rumors? I thought that had been announced.
- gamesurgeon 13y ago
  To my knowledge it's a rumor.
- jeroen 13y ago
  This seems to be the sole source of those rumors: http://www.crn.com/news/mobility/300072056/sources-microsoft-in-talks-to-acquire-mobile-app-development-startup-xamarin.htm http://www.crn.com/news/mobility/300072056/sources-microsoft... "Microsoft is in the final stages of negotiations that could lead to either an acquisition or major investment in Xamarin, sources with knowledge of the discussions told CRN recently." The article is from march 17th and there doesn't seem to be anything newer.
untog 13y ago
If MS buy Xamarin then it'll be a fantastic validation for a team that was dumped by Novell not so long ago. I'm also very excited about the idea of getting back into C# again. I always loved the language, but moved away from the .NET stack. Here's hoping.
keithwarren 13y ago

pjmlp 13y ago

Native compilation! This are great news. Never got the point why Java and .NET adopted a VM approach, back in the days when we already had safe systems programming languages like Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Ada, Delphi with AOT compilers on their canonical toolchains.

andymcsherry 13y ago
The purpose of using a VM is that the developer ships one version of their compiled software that can be run by anyone who has the VM on their system. Otherwise, the developer needs to anticipate every single architecture a user might want to run it on. They might not be able to anticipate all these cases which might not even exist yet.
- sneak 13y ago
  A fat binary with both common native architectures and also vm code would seemingly take care of this edge case, no? Also, what's wrong with emulation?
  - emn13 13y ago
    It's slow, complex, and unnecessary?
    - sneak 13y ago
      What about when it's a machine for which hardware doesn't actually exist... like a virtual one? How is that less unnecessary?
      - emn13 13y ago
        I wouldn't call a JIT compiler an emulator. However, it's certainly unnecessary (why not just generate the machine code already?), and it generates slower code because JIT compiling is a more difficult task due to the fact that the time limits on the optimizer itself are pretty harsh.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

But does it support inline x64 assembly yet?

pjmlp 13y ago
It never will, it is a design decision. Even Intel pushes for intrinsics.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Those don't do the same thing.
  - teacup50 13y ago
    They don't, but they're a lot saner to deal with. I don't even use inline assembly where it's supported; all the magic of a compiler, all the foot shooting of assembly, none of the transparency of either. I'm happy either using intrinsics, or implementing assembly in separate .S files; I can't recall the last time my avoidance of inline assembly prevented me from implementing something I needed.

sergiotapia 13y ago

Looks like I'm going start reading up on C# again! It's been a good 4 years without touching .NET but these developments make my want to try a hand in mobile Windows 8 development.

mtVessel 13y ago

And yet, we still can't get menu labels that don't make me wonder if it's 1986 again.

mtVessel 13y ago
What, too soon?

frozenport 13y ago

I'm sticking with 2012, until 2013 stops crashing!

frozenport 13y ago
Why am I being downvoted? I can't use VS 2013 because it is unstable... I wonder if there are MS saboteurs among us.

Taurenking 13y ago

if only Visual Studio runned in other os's...as a matter of fact i know many developers stick with windows JUST because of vs...

simonswords82 13y ago

This confirms to me that as a software agency we were right to stick with C# even when it was "uncool" and there were plenty of new kids on the block (I'm looking at you RoR). There were a number of times when I wondered if we had backed the wrong horse in Microsoft but being able to gain traction on mobile development (assuming the Xamarin purchase goes ahead) and other changes such as native compilation makes me happy with stuck with them.