sdk VS CoreCLR

I hate to defend telemetry of all things but in this particular case the criticism is unfounded and lacks context:

https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/telemetry

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetr...

https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/tree/main/src/Cli/dotnet/Telem...

In any case, Debian would use https://github.com/dotnet/source-build and dotnet/dotnet, and could easily include the argument or a patch for this. It’s unlikely to be an issue. My bet it was not in Debian because there was no one to take initiative or there was but that person has faced a backlash by people in Debian who are similar to vocal minority here that posts FUD because of their little personal crusade.

FWIW telemetry can be easily opted-out, which the SDK explicitly tells you about, and there is a page that has full list of the kind of data that is collected (usage metrics and tooling crash stack traces). You can also review the metrics yourself.

About: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetr...

Collected statistics: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/telemetry

Source code: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/tree/main/src/Cli/dotnet/Telem...

In either case, many CIs simply have 'DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT=' and call it a day.

They used to gather all command line arguments until they later decided that (oops!) it's "not acceptable per our privacy policies"[0] and they really shouldn't have been doing that. They have also had issues with anonymization not being implemented properly, the opt-out mechanism not working in some edge cases, forgetting to even tell users about the need to opt out, and who knows what else.

Also, monetary value is not the only reason you might want to keep information private.

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/6145#issuecomment-22010...

[DllImport("libc")] private static extern uint geteuid(); public bool IsCurrentProcessElevated() { if (RuntimeInformation.IsOSPlatform(OSPlatform.Windows)) { // https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/blob/v6.0.100/src/Cli/dotnet/Installer/Windows/WindowsUtils.cs#L38 using var identity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent(); var principal = new WindowsPrincipal(identity); return principal.IsInRole(WindowsBuiltInRole.Administrator); } // https://github.com/dotnet/maintenance-packages/blob/62823150914410d43a3fd9de246d882f2a21d5ef/src/Common/tests/TestUtilities/System/PlatformDetection.Unix.cs#L58 // 0 is the ID of the root user return geteuid() == 0; }

> There's definitely things they tried to improve on that... weren't really improvements. The way "assemblies" are matched in .NET is much more sophisticated- the goal there was to try to kill DLL hell. It evolved into the Global Assembly Cache, which is sort of the Windows Registry of DLLs. Not a huge fan of those bits.

The Global Assembly Cache did not make the jump to the modern .NET (Core). There was the thing called `dotnet store`, but it’s broken since .NET 6: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/24752

The assembly redirection hell has also been greatly reduced there.

I do the same.

I have a small write-up here: https://chrlschn.dev/blog/2023/10/end-to-end-type-safety-wit...

You get end-to-end type safety (even better once you connect it to EF Core since you get it all ways to your DB).

With this setup with hot-reload (currently broken in .NET 8 [0]), productivity is really, really good. Like tRPC but with one of the most powerful ORMs out there right now.

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/36918

Noticed an open issue just now.

You're thinking of https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/22247

That's a twisted and wrong narrative

Unity like refers to a Editor driven approach

Unity became popular with its moonscript language (javascript like), they then ditched it to focus on C#, but what propelled unity to what it is today is the Editor driven approach, not c#, not DOTS

They are forced to transpile C# to C++ via IL2CPP as a result to target consoles/mobiles

C# is a disease when it comes to console/mobile support

It's a substantial dependency, quite heavy

And you are not free of unity like fuck ups, it's a microsoft language after all:

https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/22247

And let's not forget when they changed the license of their debugger overnight to prevent people from using it in their products (jetbrains for example)

And them deprecating open source tooling to a proprietary/closed one for vscode (c# devkit)

Let's be careful when we recommend evil as an alternative to evil ;)

The script can be found at the end of the thread here https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/8742

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

Sort of, some topic are not relevant anymore, consider this - https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/tree/master/Documentation/botr

Fairly advanced stuff but the Book Of The Runtime (BOTR) it's a invaluable resource

After that you can check out the The Book of the Runtime, which is the CoreCLR version of the previous book.

Technically the restrictions already exist, just as a part of the development experience.

- .NET Hot Reload is only implemented on Windows. It requires support in the .NET runtime, which is technically possible to implement, but the team has not gotten around to implementing it for years. This doesn't have to do with the issue around MS removing the "dotnet watch" command, it's for the "Edit and Continue" feature in IDEs.[1][2]

- MS was considering deprecating Omnisharp, the open-source language server that implements C# support for VS Code, and replacing it with a closed-source version. Since the announcement, commits to omnisharp-vscode have dropped off significantly. The lack of Omnisharp would mean there would be no real open-source C# development environment for Linux anymore, since MonoDevelop was abandoned a few years ago. [3]

[1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-31366/EditContinu...

[2] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/23685

[3] https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276

The next step is to realize everything you think you know about .NET is just an abstraction. Next step is to learn about what is going on behind all that syntax sugar and facades. 1st step might be https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/tree/master/Documentation/botr then go down the rabbit hole and have fun

Book of the Runtime

As for the books, back in the days I really enjoyed reading “CLR via C#" by Jeffrey Richter which helped a lot to understand what is under the hood. Other from that, try The Book of the Runtime