This might be the most exciting news I've heard in a long time. Being able to use Visual Studio and .NET for web development while using zsh and all the other Linux tools? Dreamland.
replies(3):
I personally think .NET is much worse than any of the more common web languages (even PHP or Perl) for the web. If I were writing a Windows application then I'd probably write it in .NET using Visual Studio, but not a web application.
As I said in my original comment "Different strokes.", you may like .NET. That's fine. It might be the right choice for you and the wrong one for me. I was more commenting that it was amazing to me that someone would think it was awesome because it sounds like the complete opposite to me.
I guess I should have asked what you find compelling about writing web applications in .NET.
What does this give you that you would not already have with cygwin? The latter installs .exe versions of the usual command line utils, and I'm almost certain ZSH and the others you speak of are included.
I do not understand the practical implications of this move by Canonical/MS other than PR - what's actually changing from a user/dev standpoint?
I think the HN intolerance towards Microsoft / zealousness for Apple is showing here. Certainly .NET isn't for everyone, but I don't think "is not a good web development framework" is justified. Check out http://nancyfx.org/ if you're looking for something more lightweight than the full ASP.NET / IIS stack.
I have issues with Microsoft's MVC (mostly that there is no official way of splitting it across several solutions and keeping working routing) but I've never found it overkill for enterprise-style webapp development.
We used MVC/Entity Framework. It works well as a RAD for the backend with full HTML/CSS/JS for the front end that we can get creative with. Reminds me a lot of Java development.
The MVC model itself is not overkill, sorry that sentence was not clear. I should know better than make contentious comments on HN that are going to spawn a bunch of aggressive responses when I'm trying to start my day.
My only real problem with Cygwin is, that it misses a command-line package manager. If they could adopt pacman for package management like MSYS2 does, I'd be a happy camper.
edit: To deploy Cygwin based applications you need to get a commercial license from RedHat (if it's not FOSS). Which could be a deal-breaker.
I was also running into Haskell compilation problems that were fixed by running Ubuntu in a Vagrant environment but speed was slow. There isn't good NFS support on Windows either (there is some).
You have not given any solid technical reason as to why ASP.NET is a bad framework. In my experiences, it's more or less as capable as Ruby on Rails, Clojure, Java, etc. You've stated it's overkill, meaning what exactly? Are you even aware of the changes being made to ASP.NET vNext? The dotnet cli tool? The only complaint you seem to have is that the tight coupling of ASP.NET to various Windows platforms is a little much for people who are used to Go or RoR.
But, you don't have to use mvc; there's Nancy or low-level Owin. So why do people complain about MVC when there are other choices? Certainly not like in other platforms, but at least few good ones exists! Why judge whole platform because of one fx?
Similar like EF or Nhibernate. They are big and heavy and very slow if not used properly, but also there's Dapper, massive or simpleData.
There is babun (https://babun.github.io/). It is essentially a wrapper around cygwin and comes with a package manager.
Windows still has a ways to go. I think this might make some Windows stuff easier to deal with, but I still prefer jobs where I can run Linux natively on my workstation.
On my i5-3550 with 16 GB of RAM and an SSD it takes a couple seconds to start the first time and less than a second for subsequent times.
Both machines are running Windows 10.
Right now, the machine with the spinning rust is loading a bunch of files with an I/O priority of "background" because it just got booted into Windows; that might slow it down a bit because of the seek times and I don't know if Windows is willing to starve background I/O for seconds at a time to speed up interactive requests (I doubt it).
Update: once all the background preloading is done, PowerShell restarts in three seconds on the spinning-rust machine.
Long story short, I think getting an SSD will be the thing that makes PowerShell start acceptably fast.
Not sure about X11 apps, but whatever. Largely this makes running a special win32 build of redis for whatever dev you're doing unnecessary.
I'm currently running windows on this laptop, but I have a virtualbox instance running Lubuntu for doing any UNIX specific dev. Ports and files are shared across windows and linux transparently, which means there's far less need for need for running+maintaining a separate developer's VM.
Left click in fwvm, select xterm, window appears in less than my blink response time.
Seriously: I think I might pop Win10 on an old Dell i5 that came with Win7 and play with this.
Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
This is the ISE in a default configuration https://imgur.com/xz9Kfpt On the left just an open terminal, in the middle a script which can be edited and executed at any time with F5, and on the right all the powershell commands which could be either immediately executed or inserted into your script with ease.
Unless you need tab browsing that much, which you can get via addons, the ISE is one of the best "terminals" out there imho.
As people have mentioned the biggest factor here is probably your hard drive since you are loading maybe couple of 100's of small files when you load the ISE.
As far as being an "influencer"; do you see any links on my profile? Again, that's something other people find appealing, not me.