back to article Microsoft lights a fire under .NET Core teams, just in time for Ignite

Microsoft flung out updates to more of its development tech last night. It's almost as though there's a big conference coming up. .NET Core 2.2 Preview 2 .NET Core 2.2 got a bump to preview 2, which introduced little in the way of new functionality but did switch on tiered compilation. Tiered compilation was an option in .NET …

  1. Anonymous Bullard
    Happy

    .NET Core's killer feature? You don't need Windows (in dev or production).

    It's great for us developers who've outgrown Windows, or have been screwed over enough, but still want to take their skillset with them.

    One of the very few things I'm happy with from Microsoft. They showed they loved me enough to let me leave. (well, almost)

  2. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Meh

    what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

    I 'outgrew' '.Not' back in the early noughties, when they thought it up.

    I just do a native compile. Seems to go blisteringly fast, too. It's WAY better than some p-code wannabe that's part of ".Not". Bleah. Throw it away along with 'garbage collection' and the bass-ackwards pseudo-object-oriented way of doing things that's so "core" to ".Not".

    I mean, do you REALLY need "Universe.Galaxy.system.planet.continent.country.province" <line break> ".county.city.district.street.house.pet.flea" just to get to "flea"? beginning by enumerating the 'universe' collection? And getting EVERY! STINKING! DETAIL! about EVERY! OTHER! FLEA! during the enumeration to find the matching flea? Seriously?

    OK maybe not THAT bad, but it was an illustration of the bass-ackwards thinking behind ".Not"s very design. Thanks, I'll use API functions instead, and write efficient C/C++ code that compiles to a NATIVE BINARY and doesn't need a MONOLITHIC TOP-HEAVY SHARED LIB [that gets updated _ALL_ of the time because it's so flawed] just to LOAD [let alone RUN].

    [and - dirty little secret - if I design my C++ code properly, I can compile it for MFC _or_ wxWidgets with the SAME! CODE! BASE! Imagine that!]

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

      You forgot to mention FLATSO FUGLY 2D...ETC

      If you are genuinely writing code using only the Native API functions without recourse to libraries - especially if you're developing on a windows platform - then even a Hello World program will take you X times longer than it takes any other developer using .NET to create something that actually achieves something worthwhile. If you are a currently active developer writing significant code for other people to use without using libraries of some kind then I would say you are probably unemployed and unemployable, or you're probably just bull shitting. Or you don't actually have to work for an income.

      1. karlkarl

        Re: what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

        "If you are genuinely writing code using only the Native API functions without recourse to libraries"

        He did mention he was using libraries. wxWidgets being one such example.

        I personally found that C++ projects seem to progress faster than .NET / Java projects. I don't know if it is the developers that are better or if .NET has hidden failures.

        1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

          Re: what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

          RE: "He did mention he was using libraries. wxWidgets being one such example."

          Then he isn't doing what he was boasting about - using native APIs. He's doing what .NET developers do and using a library between his code and the OS. Shrugs...He sure does make a lot of noise about what he doesn't like. He doesn't make much sense though. He's too angry about everything.

    2. RyokuMas Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

      "I 'outgrew' '.Not' back in the early noughties"

      Pity you haven't outgrown the mid-90s-AOL-esque use of caps and name-calling. Grow up.

    3. Anonymous Bullard

      Re: what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

      I don't develop desktop applications (anymore), I don't run on Windows, and anything that's time critical (very rare - .NET core produces reasonable machine code) would be written in Rust, but only after the speed improvements are required and measured.

      I grew out of C++ a decade ago, when my clients decided they no longer require desktop applications.

      1. bazza Silver badge

        Re: what if you 'outgrew' ".Not" (aka ".Net") itself?

        I don't develop desktop applications (anymore), I don't run on Windows, and anything that's time critical (very rare - .NET core produces reasonable machine code) would be written in Rust, but only after the speed improvements are required and measured.

        I grew out of C++ a decade ago, when my clients decided they no longer require desktop applications

        I mourn the passing of desktop apps. In my own opinion there's something miserable about Web apps; they're slow, clunky, disregard local norms for keyboard short cuts and they also tend to be truly awful for people requiring accessibility help. The ultimate awfulness is the implementation of a pop-up dialogue box in html/JS/css; if you're creating dialogue boxes instead of just asking the local OS to pop one up for you, something has gone badly wrong, and coding has entered the realm of lunacy. Dialogue boxes like that are missing the whole point anyway; the use can't move them outside of the browser window to see what's underneath.

        They're also wasteful of resources. A simple Hello World might require almost no html, but the several hundreds of megabytes of RAM needed by a modern browser to display that is absurd. Chrome especially.

        I still write in C++, C (lots of real time stuff), but I'm realising that Rust is probably the place to go. It seems that Mozilla have accidentally brewed up a very good language. We're near the point where any new C++ project really, really ought to not use C++ but use Rust instead. There's simply nothing about C++ that makes it superior, whilst Rust also clears out all the nasties with memory.

        The fact that Redox has got as far as it has with comparatively few developers in, what, 3 years I think shows that development in Rust can be quick.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I’ve got an iPhone...

    Am I welcome here?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I’ve got an iPhone...

      NO!!!!!!

      GET OUT!!!!!!!

      BUGGER OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I’ve got an iPhone...

      Am I welcome here?

      Of course you are!

      After all, we need someone to throw the custard pies at. It's pineapple flavoured custard!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019