That's not how languages in the .net ecosystem have worked in the past. C# is an open, ecma standard, as is the specification of the common language infrastructure (the VM/byte-code design for running .net programs). And MS publishes the language specifications for VB and F#. That's why it's possible to run .net code on linux without ever paying MS. There's even an open source F# compiler.
Moreover, the .net compilers, library, framework, and run-time are, and have been, provided for free, as is a version of the IDE. All of which can be used to develop commercial applications. The only requirement being that they run on a Windows OS. Even so, you can run all of this from within WINE, again without ever paying MS any money whatsoever.
The idea that MS is out to envelope developers by enticing them into a language that requires massive cash outlays or ongoing licensing fees is not supported by reality.
The idea that MS is out to envelope developers by enticing
them into a language that requires massive cash outlays or
*ongoing licensing fees* is not supported by reality.
...
The only requirement being that they run on a Windows OS
Mhm.
Yes, I suppose you can run some C# on a non-windows machine, but it'll have bugs, break, some libraries won't be supported and there's no tooling support.
...but don't worry, you can happily tell everyone how free and open source it is. That's really important!
(by comparison, have a look at go which actually bothered to make a commitment to supporting various platforms; and don't even start with that whole 'xamarin is awesome' stuff; yes it is, but it in no ways acts as a caveat for microsoft's 'we'll make the spec public, that's good enough right?' behaviour)
Why does this need to be explained to C# people every time we have this conversation? Seriously, every time!
C# runs great on 90% of desktop computers because Microsoft has had a 20 year desktop monopoly. It's is a walled garden until we can easily move code to other platforms and have it perform at the same level.
Mobile apps, web apps and games are where the money is these days; and writing those in C# requires license fees for tools and (in some cases) servers to run the software on.
Are you suggesting that if Microsoft releases this new language they might not require an expensive Visual Studio license so you can use the language plugin, or an expensive server license to run it on?
(To be fair, the python developer tools actually did this, with a forked free version of visual studio, and the typescript compiler is free and open (although the tooling plugin requires VS Pro)) ...so perhaps its not totally out of the question).
I'm not holding my breath, but if they surprise me, I'll happily eat my words.
I'm really appalled by the hostility that's being displayed here. This is Microsoft research in Cambridge, not the Xbox one marketing department. You know, the guys who work on Haskell, ported OCAML to .net and generally do a lot of awesome stuff.
What have you created that justifies this kind of an attitude?
FYI, this isn't really an MSR project. It (the OS project that spawned the language) was run under the "Startup Business Group" until recently, and developed in Redmond.
> You know, the guys who work on Haskell, ported OCAML to .net and generally do a lot of awesome stuff.
Not exactly. The guys who developed F# based the core language mostly on OCaml and borrowed some ideas from Haskell, but are not the same as the people who developed Haskell.
well, if we only look at the language and the "recent" past then C# is both an Ecma and ISO standard.
yes, it's only one example among 1000s of opposite ones but things are changing even in Microsoft, very slowly, with lots of setbacks, but they are. They won't transform MS anytime soon and possibly ever but I see saner pockets emerging.
Yes their technical specifications for protocols and formats are wonderful since they released the open specification promise!
Oh no wait, for those of us who have actually used these specs (in my case MSRPC/DCE), it's a hopeless mess of blatantly incomplete documentation obviously written by the lowest bidder.
Microsoft haven't changed. They've succeeded in changing their perception only. The company is still predatory sales focused and always will be.
Some are, some are not. Some are so bad it's unfunny. Literally someone has read the COM IDL and made up some padding. The core protocols like MSRPC are poorly documented i.e. the interoperability specs. They definitely have more than one person (did I suggest otherwise?) but I suspect the documentation was outsourced for a lot of stuff to people who have no idea how it works
Anecdotal, but sometimes things seem so dysfunctional within MS that I can't believe they get anything done at all: I once met a professor at a conference who said his grad students were reverse-engineering some of Microsoft's distributed system protocols (not MSRPC). I asked him why he didn't directly contact the team owning that project at Microsoft for help instead, and if I should introduce him to them -- I had met them before and they were pretty friendly and eager to get people to use their stuff. He said he was doing the reverse engineering for Microsoft. When I was like "WTF, why?!", he wouldn't give any details but said in an offhand way that MS needed somebody to document the system.
Now, I cannot imagine what unearthly sequence of events led to a snafu where MS had to ask an outside party to reverse engineer their own stuff in order to document it... But that may explain your experience.
It's completely not at all the same, but still familiar to rust programmers.
It's but built for the enterprise with advanced patented technology.
The yearly license fee will include responsive customer service.