rust-opendingux-test VS sdk

> By cross-compiling one usually understands compiling for the same OS but different architecture.

I don't even consider that to rise to the level of "cross compiling".

Getting started with emscripten to target WASM for C and C++ is rather a chore of dependency wrangling IME. Targeting WASM from Rust, OTOH, is trivial. Targeting windows from linux with Rust is also quite straightforward, as has been experimenting with targeting consoles or Android from Windows.

Targeting a MIPS32 OpenDingux target from Windows was much more of a chore. The toolchain with libs, headers, etc. that I used is just a *.tar.bz2 that expects to be extracted to /opt/gcw0-toolchain of a linux distro specifically, and embedded absolute paths all over the place make changing that difficult. I do resort to WSL on Windows, basically only because of those embedded paths: https://github.com/MaulingMonkey/rust-opendingux-test

Acquiring the appropriate libs and headers to link/compile against for cross compiling is always an adventure, but Rust isn't making things any worse IME.

It's not about being "cool"

It's about the motives

"it's open source"

"it now works on linux"

it all doesn't matter if they'll go after your ass if you dare build tooling with their debugger (jetbrains)

of when they want to remove a feature overnight to make it exclusive to visual studio windows

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

it's this kind of things that makes it hard to recommend to people, and Microsoft can't be trusted

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 ;)