core VS Oberon

🌟.NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️.NET 9 Preview 2 Discussion ➡️ASP.NET Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️ASP.NET Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 Release Notes ➡️EF Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️.NET Aspire preview 4 - .NET Aspire

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

The tooling is not entirely open or freely available.

If you, for e.g., want to debug you have to use MS tooling.[0] You also can't use VSCodium because only the MS built/distributed version of VSCode contains the necessary proprietary binary blobs necessary to debug C# (which also means you're forced to using the aggressive telemetry and other data collection built into the non-open source distribution of VSCode).

They've also taken steps to lock down the LSP support for C#, which once again requires that you use a MS sanctioned code editor to write C#. [1]

I really enjoy writing C# and think dotnet is a great platform to develop for, but the barriers preventing me from building more projects on it is that I don't want to be forced to use VSCode or Visual Studio.

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/core/issues/505

Microsoft does not adapt their new products to operating systems (https://github.com/dotnet/core/issues/7556) which have reached End-of-Support status. Therefore, the game's system requirements have changed:

Thanks to .Net core

> Sure there's a small overhead to smart pointers

Not so small, and it has the potential to significantly speed down an application when not used wisely. Here are e.g. some measurements where the programmer used C++11 and did everything with smart pointers: https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/issues/80#issuecomm.... There was a speed down between factor 2 and 10 compared with the C++98 implementation. Also remember that smart pointers create memory leaks when used with circular references, and there is an additional memory allocation involved with each smart pointer.

> Garbage collection has an overhead too of course

The Boehm GC is surprisingly efficient. See e.g. these measurements: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase.... The same benchmark suite as above is compared with different versions of Mono (using the generational GC) and the C code (using Boehm GC) generated with my Oberon compiler. The latter only is 20% slower than the native C++98 version, and still twice as fast as Mono 5.

Great, thanks!

There are books online for free, e.g.

https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProgInOberonWR.pdf

and https://ssw.jku.at/Research/Books/Oberon2.pdf

Oberon+ is a superset of Oberon 90 and Oberon-2. Here is more information: https://oberon-lang.github.io/, and here is the current language specification: https://github.com/oberon-lang/specification/blob/master/The.... I already had valuable feedback here on HN concerning the channel extensions. Further research brought me to the conclusion, that Oberon+ should support both, channels and also monitors, because even in Go, the sync package primitives are used twice as much as channels. Mutexes and condition variables can be emulated with channels (I tried my luck here: https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-emulate-mutexes-and-conditi...), but for efficiency reasons I think monitors should be directly supported in the language as well, even if it might collide with the goal of simplicity.

Feel free to comment here or e.g. in https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/discussions/45.

> Does anyone know why Wirth never modernized his style?

Readability. It's easier to read the source code with uppercase keywords. (I think Wirth once said that code is written once but read many times). See this source code - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem... - to get an idea of this (the uppercase keywords allow you to easily scan the blocks of code). Ofcourse, one can claim that the same can be achieved better today with colour-coded keywords.

If I remember right, the Oberon+ IDE - https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon - gives you an option to disable this and use lowercase keywords.

> gain a deep understanding of it .. generate smaller subsets of the system

You can use the OberonViewer for this purpose with the original source code, or the Oberon IDE with a version of the Project Oberon System which runs with SDL on all platforms, see https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon/#binary-versions and https://github.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem/tree/FFI

> Regardless, which one is more likely to be ported to a different architecture in the future?

Not sure I understand the question. I'm talking about CPU architectures. The current implementation is in x86 assembler. So if you want to run it on AMD64 or ARM, then you have to replace all assembler files, in the present case probable the full source code.

> what are the comparative performance benchmarks of the low-level language versus the high-level language?

I don't have any measurements. But consider that many operating systems are implemented in C (e.g. Linux) with only isolated parts in assembler, so it is easier to port to other architectures. Linux apparently is fast enough and available for nearly every CPU. Oberon in contrast to C is garbage collected, which also affects performance. I have measurements comparing the same benchmark suite implemented in C++ and in Oberon, where the former is about 22% faster (see https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase...).

I actually had a similar problem some years ago and finally moved away from LLVM because of complexity, continuous research effort and performance. My current Oberon+ implementation works like this: the CIL code generator together with Mono is used during development, integrated with the IDE, using the debugging features integrated in Mono; to deploy the application and to gain another factor 2 of performance C99 instead of CIL can be generated and compiled with any compatible toolchain. Here are some performance measurements: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcases/Are-we-fast-yet/Are-we-fast-yet_results_linux.pdf. Compiling to CIL is very fast and the time Mono needs to compile and run is barely noticable.

> annoying aspects was requiring the .NET runtime ... OpenJDK is a blessed implementation in a way that Mono never was

Which is unjustified, because Mono CLR is just a single executable less than 5 MB which you can download and run without a complicated installation process (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/#binary-versions ). AOT compilation on the other hand is a huge and complex installation depending on a lot of stuff including LLVM, and the resulting executables are not really smaller than the CLR + mscorlib + app.