No, but this is Microrust
It's completely not at all the same, but still familiar to rust programmers.
It's but built for the enterprise with advanced patented technology.
The yearly license fee will include responsive customer service.
It's completely not at all the same, but still familiar to rust programmers.
It's but built for the enterprise with advanced patented technology.
The yearly license fee will include responsive customer service.
Moreover, the .net compilers, library, framework, and run-time are, and have been, provided for free, as is a version of the IDE. All of which can be used to develop commercial applications. The only requirement being that they run on a Windows OS. Even so, you can run all of this from within WINE, again without ever paying MS any money whatsoever.
The idea that MS is out to envelope developers by enticing them into a language that requires massive cash outlays or ongoing licensing fees is not supported by reality.
The idea that MS is out to envelope developers by enticing
them into a language that requires massive cash outlays or
*ongoing licensing fees* is not supported by reality.
The only requirement being that they run on a Windows OS
Yes, I suppose you can run some C# on a non-windows machine, but it'll have bugs, break, some libraries won't be supported and there's no tooling support.
...but don't worry, you can happily tell everyone how free and open source it is. That's really important!
(by comparison, have a look at go which actually bothered to make a commitment to supporting various platforms; and don't even start with that whole 'xamarin is awesome' stuff; yes it is, but it in no ways acts as a caveat for microsoft's 'we'll make the spec public, that's good enough right?' behaviour)
C# runs great on 90% of desktop computers because Microsoft has had a 20 year desktop monopoly. It's is a walled garden until we can easily move code to other platforms and have it perform at the same level.
Mobile apps, web apps and games are where the money is these days; and writing those in C# requires license fees for tools and (in some cases) servers to run the software on.
Are you suggesting that if Microsoft releases this new language they might not require an expensive Visual Studio license so you can use the language plugin, or an expensive server license to run it on?
(To be fair, the python developer tools actually did this, with a forked free version of visual studio, and the typescript compiler is free and open (although the tooling plugin requires VS Pro)) ...so perhaps its not totally out of the question).
I'm not holding my breath, but if they surprise me, I'll happily eat my words.
Would open sourcing the C# compiler be enough? Open sourcing .NET? Providing .NET support and development for Linux?
I'm honestly just curious, not to put you on the spot.
It's not hard, heck Microsoft has even done it before, they just missed the ball with C#.
What have you created that justifies this kind of an attitude?
Not exactly. The guys who developed F# based the core language mostly on OCaml and borrowed some ideas from Haskell, but are not the same as the people who developed Haskell.
Yes, I'm aware that it's not the Haskell core team who is working on this new language. But they probably have their offices across the floor.
yes, it's only one example among 1000s of opposite ones but things are changing even in Microsoft, very slowly, with lots of setbacks, but they are. They won't transform MS anytime soon and possibly ever but I see saner pockets emerging.
Oh no wait, for those of us who have actually used these specs (in my case MSRPC/DCE), it's a hopeless mess of blatantly incomplete documentation obviously written by the lowest bidder.
Microsoft haven't changed. They've succeeded in changing their perception only. The company is still predatory sales focused and always will be.
It's almost like they have more than one person who writes specs.
Now, I cannot imagine what unearthly sequence of events led to a snafu where MS had to ask an outside party to reverse engineer their own stuff in order to document it... But that may explain your experience.