.NET everywhere apparently also means Windows 3.11 and DOS | Hacker News Reader

.NET everywhere apparently also means Windows 3.11 and DOS

hanselman.com

70 pointsbenaadams15 comments

This article is a garbage rewrite of the original blog[1]. It misses a boatload of detail and even gets some details wrong along the way (Like the fact .NET isn’t actually running on DOS)

[1] https://medium.com/@MStrehovsky/building-a-self-contained-ga...

2 days ago, he merged a pull request that adds DOS support: https://github.com/MichalStrehovsky/SeeSharpSnake/pull/5

Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240

Parent's point, I think, is that technically .NET isn't running on DOS, just C# AOT compiled. In other words, the standard library isn't being used.

No different than using freestanding C, C++ or whatever.

+1. Thanks for the link to the actual article. Don't know why this is downvoted. Clearly more insightful than the MS advertisement spin of the article. Perhaps the original link should be replaced with it.

Few days ago, original article was already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22010159

That article isn't about running on Windows 3.11 and DOS; that article is about shrinking the executable size to under 8kB

Because its a different article.

The first one is about shrinking to under 8Kb.

This is about running on Windows 3.11

It's not a rewrite. Scott Hanselman is a very popular and well-liked evangelist in the .NET community. He's highlighting Michal's project to his large audience with several links to the original work throughout the post.

...which still makes it a rewrite. :)

Scott maybe respected but this particular article doesn’t add anything. The original is a much better read.

That's a disingenuous definition. Obviously the original is a "better" read because it's the full project being featured.

Scott's article summarized and intro'd the project to people who never saw the original, including the person who posted it here on HN. That's adding quite a lot of value.

Why are you so intent on putting down Scott's post?

I think there’s some bias going on here. Any other blog on any other subject and I’m sure you’d be the first to say “link to the original rather than the summary”. In fact people not linking to the original work is popular complaint on here. The fact this is Scott’s blog shouldn’t change anything and even you have agreed that the original is better. So why are you arguing as if it’s me who’s making this personal?

Anyway, I’m glad you got something from it. I personally didn’t, which is why I made my initial post, but I did find the original source to be really well written and thought others might prefer that too.

Its a substantially different article mostly about running on Windows 3.1; whereas the first is about shrinking the executable under 8 kilobytes (but not DOS).

And yes the game now runs on MS-DOS 5.0 https://twitter.com/MStrehovsky/status/1218966180104458240

> 1/n It has always bugged me that I can't run my 64-bit C# games on MS-DOS. Today I fixed that. A thread.

Microsoft really excelled (pun?) in binary compatibility. I can still run 20+ years old games in Win10.

That's a shame to see how little control we have over e.g. our phones nowadays, how monolithic they are, SW wise.

TIL: there's a 32-bit "Best Of Windows Entertainment Pack" that runs on 64-bit systems. Missing: chips challenge, pipe dream, jezzball, fujigolf, game of life, rodents revenge, skifree (32-bit Skifree exists elsewhere).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com