Linked by twitterfire on Mon 24th Oct 2011 22:52 UTC
General Development "Looking past the Metro hype, the Build conference also revealed promising road maps for C#, Visual Studio, and the .Net platform as a whole. Perhaps the most exciting demo of the conference for .Net developers, however, was Project Roslyn, a new technology that Microsoft made available yesterday as a Community Technology Preview. Roslyn aims to bring powerful new features to C#, Visual Basic, and Visual Studio, but it's really much more than that. If it succeeds, it will reinvent how we view compilers and compiled languages altogether."
Thread beginning with comment 494128
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Always is a very long time...or not.
by Soulbender on Mon 24th Oct 2011 23:50 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Microsoft has always been top-notch when it comes to developer tools.


Apparently "always" doesn't go that far back. I can remember a time when MS compilers and developer tools wasn't really used by anyone doing serious development. The companies making great compilers and dev tools was Borland and Watcom and many others. Ms, not so much.

If it succeeds, it will reinvent how we view compilers and compiled languages altogether.


Right. Of course it will.

It's actually very similar to the Mono project's Mono.CSharp library, which exposes the Mono C# compiler as a service and enables a REPL console much like the one Hejlsberg demoed at Build.


So it's actually not all that revolutionary then.
Not saying it's not good technology, I'm sure it is, but less hype wouldn't hurt, especially for a product with absolutely no shipment date whatsoever.

Edited 2011-10-24 23:50 UTC

Reply Score: 9

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Apparently "always" doesn't go that far back. I can remember a time when MS compilers and developer tools wasn't really used by anyone doing serious development. The companies making great compilers and dev tools was Borland and Watcom and many others. Ms, not so much.


Oh, I don't know... I learned a lot from working with QuickBasic and QuickC, back in the day. They might not have been great for serious developers, but were a very good way for a youngster to get started.

Don't get me started on their web development tools, though. The ones included in IE8 and later are adequate, but it took them far too long to provide something that could match the least of what Firebug (and the WebKit equivalent) deliver.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Microsoft tools really just sort of sucked until they started the practice of just hiring away all the best engineers from their competitors.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Apparently "always" doesn't go that far back. I can remember a time when MS compilers and developer tools wasn't really used by anyone doing serious development. The companies making great compilers and dev tools was Borland and Watcom and many others. Ms, not so much.


You have to reach back to the early 90s -- nearly 20 years ago -- for that. And that's quite frankly forever in technology terms.

So it's actually not all that revolutionary then. Not saying it's not good technology, I'm sure it is, but less hype wouldn't hurt, especially for a product with absolutely no shipment date whatsoever.


Huh? This isn't vapor. The CTP was released yesterday.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You have to reach back to the early 90s


MS dev tools was bad well into the mid 90's. In fact, they only started getting good when Hejlsberg was hired in '96.

And that's quite frankly forever in technology terms.


That's beside the point. MS dev tools wasn't "always" good. Period.

Edited 2011-10-25 14:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

It's actually very similar to the Mono project's Mono.CSharp library, which exposes the Mono C# compiler as a service and enables a REPL console much like the one Hejlsberg demoed at Build.


A Mono C# compiler with a REPL, wow that's really revolutionary!

/sarcasm

Reply Parent Score: 2

sithlord2 Member since:
2009-04-02


Apparently "always" doesn't go that far back. I can remember a time when MS compilers and developer tools wasn't really used by anyone doing serious development. The companies making great compilers and dev tools was Borland and Watcom and many others. Ms, not so much.


The BASIC interpreter of the Commodore 64 & Commodore 128 were licensed from Microsoft if I'm not mistaken. I think that counts as a successful developer product.

I don't think their development weren't that bad in general. Ok, maybe Visual Basic was, but only because it was so easy to write bad code with it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

C64 basic was the worst part of the whole package. It was basically quite useless bearing the need for extensions as e.g. Simon's Basic. The only positive parts were the extensibility and some interpretation speed parts.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



The BASIC interpreter of the Commodore 64 & Commodore 128 were licensed from Microsoft if I'm not mistaken. I think that counts as a successful developer product.

Microsoft BASIC was one of the worst variants going.
Plus nobody used BASIC for serious development, even back then and even on better BASIC implementations.
Developers wrote in machine code.

I don't think their development weren't that bad in general. Ok, maybe Visual Basic was, but only because it was so easy to write bad code with it.

Visual Basic can be pretty much ignored as it's pretty laughable for any serious development and Borland tools were significantly better than VS for quite some time. (IIRC I was still using Borland's C++ Builder in the late 90s)

Reply Parent Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

BASIC of Commodore line was rather poor. There were much better variants, BBC BASIC for example.

While wondering how many passionate relationships MS BASIC possibly started, consider also how many people it, perhaps, repulsed...

Reply Parent Score: 2