It the wording of the announcement (taking them in good faith) that applies to applications using .NET Framework. .NET Core should be 100% portable to Linux/Mac/wasm.
.NET 5 should supersede both Core and Framework IIRC
I have been hearing announcements about how Microsoft was working to make .NET code portable ever since Mono was first started in 2001.
In the years since, I've encountered many stories that attempted to make use of that portability. All failed.
I've seen the promise of portability with other software stacks, and know how hard it is. I also know that taking software that was not written to be portable, and then making it portable, is massively harder than writing it to be portable from scratch.
So, based on both the history of .NET and general knowledge, I won't believe that .NET will actually wind up being portable until I hear stories in the wild of people porting non-trivial projects to Linux with success. And I will discount all announcements that suggest the contrary.
I never understood this type of comments, is what you are trying to say something like:
"It was already tried and failed, why is this time better"
"Mainstream languages always end up not using it"
"People should reference more the original works of the past"
...
One of the many explainations of the name Rust is that it represents a collection of old ideas. What was the point you were trying to convey in specific?
I think more rediscoveries may be references than you suspect, but in the cases that are rediscoveries there is a bit of a knowledge and discoverability issue for PL features for people who aren't PL nerds already.
I'd love it if more people had a more solid understanding of the ideaspaces that have been covered in the PL landscape, but considering that most common paths to working in software (and even to creating and contributing to langs) don't involve needing to know PL history I'm not sure how to get there from here.
If you have resources you think people should be utilizing here, please speak up.
Having a solid Informatics Engineering degree, with focus on systems programming, graphics and compilers, and a very nice university library.
That was it, we had to hunt for books, compuserve, gopher and BBS were still a thing.
Nowadays learning about the history of PL is a google/bing/... search away, a couple of seconds with access to plenty of scanned papers and conference proceddings since the early 60's, so one has to be quite lazy not to research them.
Mercury brings a bit more sanity to Prolog with its mode system. This is one of the key reasons why it runs fast and can be used to build big systems like Prince. That said, it _is_ a restriction on expressiveness of programs, and sometimes that makes it hard to do certain things. That's true of any type system.
There's still an interesting question about whether a different iteration on the mode system could capture more of the semantics of Prolog while still being useful, but so far nobody has done that research yet. It's more trendy to do FP research these days, so I'm expecting it could be a _long_ time before we get an answer, sadly.
In this case the bootstrapping problem is slightly different. What you are bootstrapping is not the compiler but the verification, in coq this would be trusting that the ocaml extracted code is correct by the coq proofs.
But I might be wrong, there are a lot of nuances and I do not know them all...
A good part is that you feel like you are not actually hurting the producer and actually you might be a net positive, as most of those people would have not spent 60$ for a game but still contribute to a lively community.
In my case many moons ago not pirating movies and games would have just meant reading more books.
Also the total disconnect between quality and price play a role sometimes.
> A good part is that you feel like you are not actually hurting the producer and actually you might be a net positive, as most of those people would have not spent 60$ for a game but still contribute to a lively community.
Even as someone who abhors copyright as it stands, I can tell you this is bullshit thinking.
(Just to be clear I am not interest in giving a moral justification for piracy)
Game sallers profit from piracy the same way Microsoft and Mathworks would profit from a small population of pirated copies.
you could say the same for mods, If I can mod any game in skyrim why bother having any other game on steam.
Also for most markets the number of people that buy a game after piracy is greater than the number of pirates that would have bought the game anyway (no source on this) especially if mods are hard to impossible to pirate.
UPDATE: I won't claim this is an absolute, I imagine that at least a few (indie)games were deeply damaged by piracy, especially if they were hard to buy legally or not on steam. As I said my intention is not to justify piracy, just to understand its context and consequences
Yup, but at the same time we start seeing games that are new and approaching 100 USD (some of the latest AAA games) in Digital Distribution. It's going both ways in terms of pricing, even if the median price is indeed going down.
Honestly, do I like the Gold/Ultimate/etc. editions? Not particularly (I can stomach it better if there is a minus core game cost upgrade package so I can buy the core and then if I decide I do like the game, upgrade after), but I'm not totally against increasing cost.
You've got games like Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, etc. that are basically epics: you could play them for months (amount of time spent gaming dependent). They're not epic naturally, the teams that put them together made them that way. So in that sense, I feel like you'd still come out okay shelling out for a game like that.
Likewise, graphical fidelity is approaching insane levels. Sure, applications assist in this, but at the end of the day, the developer is still spending a ton of time getting various things right visually. As such, I don't mind shelling out for that.
Dunno, as far as AAA games go, gamers have decided graphics and length of playtime are important. As an example of then vs now, Zelda used to be a game you could beat in a few hours. Breath of the Wild? Not so much. Both of these take increased development time which no one is doing for free. For them to bump up those two, price needs to go up. If it remains the same, honestly, it will eventually be unsustainable.
.NET 5 should supersede both Core and Framework IIRC