Home VS .NET Runtime

Are you sure you want Microsoft in particular to step in? https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39

Indeed, by criteria of community drama, .NET is also too immature for use. See [1], as the conclusion of that.

[1]: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/40

Saying that outcry was about one tiny decision is like saying WW1 was because an Archduke got assassinated.

Microsoft's handling of .NET 's OSS community has been haphazard at best. Just a week or two prior to the 'dotnet watch' debacle, there were issues and concerns with the .NET Foundation that led to the Executive Director stepping down [0].

I bring this up, because in many cases the perception is that there is -still- lock in, just in a different fashion.

By that, I mean, if you Ask a typical .NET developer what they use, they'll probably say ASPNETCORE, EF Core, maybe you'll hear Hangfire, MediatR, RestSharp, or Dapper.

So, you've got a bunch of .NET devs that -only- know Microsoft technologies for the most part. Yeah there's some other stuff like MongoDb, Kafka, Redis, stuff like that, but It's not very frequent you hear about teams reaching out to other technologies.

It's very rare I hear people bring up Linq2Db, a beautiful* Micro-ORM that is best described as a type-safe, extensible SQL DSL. Or Websharper, a really-freaking-cool library that basically lets you transpile your C#/F# code into Javascript and/or Reactive HTML, complete with seamless server calls if you'd like.

You might run into some interesting things at different places. One shop I was at used MassTransit, which was kinda cool. I've wound up using Akka.NET a few times in the past, which has always been super fun.

The end result of this though, is the -perception- of what .NET Developers are like. And sometimes those perceptions are real. I remember the dev that felt Dapper was some sort of 'black magic' and would stick to writing DataReaders and or datatables by hand, and another that was so against the idea including Non-MS tech in a project that it wound up costing him his job; he insisted there was a way to get EF to do things in a performant way (answer: not sanely, and not easily the way the app was built on an arch level,) and refused to accept a PR that solved the problem with Dapper.

He wound up doing the thing I've seen a -lot- of .NET developers do; fight the Framework.

To be clear here, I'm not referring to the BCL. It's not always perfect (I'd love for an analogue to SSLEngine, please?), but it's -fine-. I'm referring to bits like ASPNETCORE, EFCore, SignalR, and Microsoft.Extensions.(DependencyInjection/Logging) where developers wind up getting in awkward tarpits around some weird edge case because of a business requirement or some other decision that, unfortunately, can't be undone.

Or are just plain 'well, that sounds sensible in theory' like "I would like to update N rows in an new status that are older than 1 month and set to overdue, and not have it be N update statements." Maybe EF does that now, but last I knew the answer was not really.

At my first 'Real' Dev job, we were a .NET shop, that often had to 'fight the framework' (it didn't help that we were on an Oracle Backend, which made -everything- more of a PITA before we discovered Dapper.) When the .NET guys hit one of these roadblocks, it would often take sprint after sprint of fighting to either have no solution, or have a solution that would render the app hard to maintain. The newer teams using Java? They didn't have those problems. We later heard they had 5 different ORM-ish libraries in use over there. At the time, a lot of the .NET devs kinda treated it as a sort of derision. 'hows somebody gonna understand it?'... But the Java teams delivered. It is also worth considering, maybe those were the best libraries to solve the problems that the app in question needed to deal with.

And that's kinda the 'mindset' that is a set of .NET developers that fit the stereotype; if it's not an app that fits their cookie-cutter world, they break down and can't understand it. In other words, they're afraid to step outside the box, which means they're less likely to think outside the box.

The typical 'litmus-test' of this type for me is a sliding scale based on their past/current experience with other languages and willingness to work with them.

* - I do some contribution work to Linq2Db, so my opinion may be a little biased.

[0] - https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#

I've heard this so many times within the last 10 years, and it's always after they've done something really stupid. At least in the FOSS realm, regarding microsoft, people are just so naive it's laughable. Like here where everyone is responding by pretty much saying "oh, it seems I've signed my rights away. I sure hope Microsoft doesn't abuse this in the future" ... I stopped feeling bad after reading responses.

Part of the drama: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39 Many things before were on twitter.

It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.

It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).

Or they could use 4-digit years.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

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)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

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" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...