←back to thread

.NET 10

(devblogs.microsoft.com)
532 points runesoerensen | 1 comments | 11 Nov 25 15:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.234s | source
Show context
jitbit ◴[11 Nov 25 15:48 UTC] No.45888669[source]▶
For us, every .NET upgrade since .NET 5 has gone surprisingly smoothly and reduced CPU/RAM usage by 10–15%.

We were even able to downgrade our cloud servers to smaller instances, literally.

I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

replies(28): >>45888799 #>>45888804 #>>45889332 #>>45891939 #>>45896032 #>>45898279 #>>45898305 #>>45898358 #>>45898503 #>>45898877 #>>45899062 #>>45899235 #>>45899246 #>>45899326 #>>45899445 #>>45899481 #>>45899858 #>>45900544 #>>45900791 #>>45900829 #>>45903218 #>>45904345 #>>45904435 #>>45905041 #>>45906073 #>>45907122 #>>45909149 #>>45909442 #
nicoburns ◴[12 Nov 25 14:22 UTC] No.45900544[source]▶
> I wish .NET was more popular among startups, if only C# could get rid of the "enterpisey" stigma.

I tried .NET and liked C# as a language. But even though the language and runtime are now open source, it seemed like a lot of the recommended libraries were still commercially licensed, which was an immediate nope from me. I've never encountered that in any other ecosystem.

replies(12): >>45900964 #>>45901284 #>>45901414 #>>45903677 #>>45904049 #>>45904177 #>>45904488 #>>45907685 #>>45907873 #>>45908268 #>>45908319 #>>45908388 #
DarkNova6 ◴[12 Nov 25 18:17 UTC] No.45903677[source]▶
Silly question. If you want the C# experience but more community/OSS driven… why not Java?
replies(5): >>45903923 #>>45904096 #>>45904106 #>>45906499 #>>45906598 #
Kwpolska ◴[12 Nov 25 20:53 UTC] No.45906499[source]▶
C# 1.0 was pretty much Microsoft Java, but since then, C# has evolved into its own, more powerful thing, while Java has stayed much more conservative over the years.
replies(2): >>45907035 #>>45908955 #
osigurdson ◴[12 Nov 25 21:32 UTC] No.45907035[source]▶
I'm not sure it is more powerful but it might be more ergonomic. The strange part about both (today - it made sense 20 years ago) is the whole bytecode thing. That should go away imo.
replies(2): >>45907289 #>>45908603 #
1. naasking ◴[12 Nov 25 23:52 UTC] No.45908603[source]▶
.NET needs runtime code generation for some of its core features, like generics. Bytecode makes this much easier.