7 ms·

I think that in the medium/long run google will, at least, add a new language officially supported and a bit more modern that the pseudo-java5 they are using ri

by yulaow 12y ago

I think that in the medium/long run google will, at least, add a new language officially supported and a bit more modern that the pseudo-java5 they are using right now. I mean something like what apple made with swift. Also considering google is already working on Go and Dart, there could be already something in preparation related to them.

wvenable 12y ago
I hope they go with C#.
- cloudwalking 12y ago
  April Fools!
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    The CLR would be a pretty good universal runtime, to be honest. It's open source under a liberal license, so you don't have to worry about the copyright dickery that Oracle. It has a lot of modern language features, like closures, with syntax that doesn't want to make one punch kittens. Plus, it has things that go beyond a lot of languages, like having the compiler classes in all versions of the runtime, so you can extend your app as it's running. There are very few frameworks out there that give even a few of those features.
    - cloudwalking 12y ago
      But nobody at Google writes C#. I think you're much more likely to see Go (or Python) where Google designed much of the toolchain.
      - ignoramous 12y ago
        Jon Skeet, highest rated user on staklckoverflow, is a C# expert and he works for Google UK. I remember reading somewhere that parts of teams in Google's London offices are Microsoft technology driven.
        cloudwalking 12y ago
        He is not writing C# at Google. That said, sure, there ARE people writing some C#. Google has applications that run on Windows. But very very few people are writing C#.
    - pron 12y ago
      The CLR has actually been open sourced under an extremely restrictive license[1]. It does not allow any modification or derivative works that are not part of the .NET runtime or a .NET app, or changes that make the platform non-conforming to the spec. The license is so restrictive that it probably even fails to meet the minimum criteria set forth by the OSI for being called "open source" (as it only allows grants very limited modification and derivation rights). Remember the great lengths Google went to avoid the OpenJDK's GPL license (which, BTW, is a plain-and-simple open source license, with its implicit, unrestricted patent grant); this one is a lot more restrictive (and dangerous). [1]: http://www.ifross.org/artikel/4-shifty-details-about-microsofts-open-source-net http://www.ifross.org/artikel/4-shifty-details-about-microso...
      - cwyers 12y ago
        This is inaccurate. The CLR has been released under the MIT, a permissive non-copyleft license that has been certified by the OSI. Microsoft has a separate patent grant that the article takes issue with, but the source itself is open.
        pron 12y ago
        The source itself is not "open" (though it is available for you to read), neither is it under the MIT license. To meet the minimum requirements for open source, the copyright holder must grant you permission to modify the source and create derivative works. Microsoft most certainly does not grant you those permissions. The MIT license implicitly grants you patent-use permissions; MS has taken those permissions away, hence this is not the MIT license, but an MIT licensed that has been ammended (so much so that it is perhaps no longer open source at all). You can read DannyBee's comments here for clarification and a more thorough and precise discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 (he's an open source lawyer).
        wvenable 12y ago
        What you are saying contradicts what is posted here: https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet ".NET open source projects typically use either the MIT or Apache 2 licenses for code. Some projects license documentation and other forms of content under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. See specific projects to understand the license used."
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  C# (using the Mono VM) actually works inside of Chrome Native Client.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Agreed. Alternatively they could try to poach Anders Hejlsberg, the guy behind C#, and have him make an even better language. Google is big enough to provide the initial push behind it and he has shown that he can repeatably build great tools (Delphi, C#, Typescript).
- pron 12y ago
  Kotlin already runs very well on Android, and people seem to love it.

by yulaow 12y ago

wvenable 12y ago

I hope they go with C#.

cloudwalking 12y ago
April Fools!
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  The CLR would be a pretty good universal runtime, to be honest. It's open source under a liberal license, so you don't have to worry about the copyright dickery that Oracle. It has a lot of modern language features, like closures, with syntax that doesn't want to make one punch kittens. Plus, it has things that go beyond a lot of languages, like having the compiler classes in all versions of the runtime, so you can extend your app as it's running. There are very few frameworks out there that give even a few of those features.
  - cloudwalking 12y ago
    But nobody at Google writes C#. I think you're much more likely to see Go (or Python) where Google designed much of the toolchain.
    - ignoramous 12y ago
      Jon Skeet, highest rated user on staklckoverflow, is a C# expert and he works for Google UK. I remember reading somewhere that parts of teams in Google's London offices are Microsoft technology driven.
      - cloudwalking 12y ago
        He is not writing C# at Google. That said, sure, there ARE people writing some C#. Google has applications that run on Windows. But very very few people are writing C#.
  - pron 12y ago
    The CLR has actually been open sourced under an extremely restrictive license[1]. It does not allow any modification or derivative works that are not part of the .NET runtime or a .NET app, or changes that make the platform non-conforming to the spec. The license is so restrictive that it probably even fails to meet the minimum criteria set forth by the OSI for being called "open source" (as it only allows grants very limited modification and derivation rights). Remember the great lengths Google went to avoid the OpenJDK's GPL license (which, BTW, is a plain-and-simple open source license, with its implicit, unrestricted patent grant); this one is a lot more restrictive (and dangerous). [1]: http://www.ifross.org/artikel/4-shifty-details-about-microsofts-open-source-net http://www.ifross.org/artikel/4-shifty-details-about-microso...
    - cwyers 12y ago
      This is inaccurate. The CLR has been released under the MIT, a permissive non-copyleft license that has been certified by the OSI. Microsoft has a separate patent grant that the article takes issue with, but the source itself is open.
      - pron 12y ago
        The source itself is not "open" (though it is available for you to read), neither is it under the MIT license. To meet the minimum requirements for open source, the copyright holder must grant you permission to modify the source and create derivative works. Microsoft most certainly does not grant you those permissions. The MIT license implicitly grants you patent-use permissions; MS has taken those permissions away, hence this is not the MIT license, but an MIT licensed that has been ammended (so much so that it is perhaps no longer open source at all). You can read DannyBee's comments here for clarification and a more thorough and precise discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 (he's an open source lawyer).
        wvenable 12y ago
        What you are saying contradicts what is posted here: https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet ".NET open source projects typically use either the MIT or Apache 2 licenses for code. Some projects license documentation and other forms of content under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. See specific projects to understand the license used."
JoshTriplett 12y ago
C# (using the Mono VM) actually works inside of Chrome Native Client.
tomjen3 12y ago
Agreed. Alternatively they could try to poach Anders Hejlsberg, the guy behind C#, and have him make an even better language. Google is big enough to provide the initial push behind it and he has shown that he can repeatably build great tools (Delphi, C#, Typescript).
pron 12y ago
Kotlin already runs very well on Android, and people seem to love it.