Comment by pjmlp
4 days ago
I very much doubt about TS.Net, given the rewrite in Go decision.
.NET nowadays has a serious adoption problem, and they should spend more time talking with their own colleagues at Azure, about their use of Java, Go, Rust.
> .NET nowadays has a serious adoption problem
It's seriously going to make people question the future of the platform. Look at Microsoft's actions, not their words.
TS Compiler: Go New TUI Editor: Rust Winget: C++ (this would have been a great candidate for .NET)
At least PowerToys is C#.
.NET is great, but why isn't it good enough for Microsoft? The company that historically has had such a strong culture of dogfooding.
The issue was in the beginning they didn’t think interop with C/C++ was value add. People complained and they added “Managed C++” which unfortunately influenced C++03’s design a lot. It wasn’t until C++11 that Microsoft gave up. You couldn’t effectively interop with C++ without writing a managed C++ wrapper, which only worked on windows. They added support for P/Invoke to aid in Win32 calls (shell.dll, user32.dll) as a simple fix and we went nuts for it. Wrote wrappers using P/Invoke and a config map nightmare of which dll’s, or dylib’s, or so’s, you needed to get the form to show.
Fast forward to today… Rust can interop with C natively. Go can as well, though you’re bringing your luggage with you with CGO. .Net hasn’t ever really had that kind of focus. For one, IL, two, Microsoft saw the platform as a cash cow, three, ecosystem lock in allowed a thriving “MVP” contractor community.
You're clobbering together a bunch of different stuff and not making a ton of sense. C and C++ are very different languages, and that's especially true when doing interop with them from other languages.
For C-based libraries, P/invoking is trivial in C# and has been around forever. And it's cross-platform, working identically on Linux and macOS. I have no idea how you can say ".Net hasn’t ever really had that kind of focus" when it's been a core part of .NET from the start, and .NET relies on P/Invoke to do everything. Go look at all the DllImport() statements in the .NET reference source. Rust FFI is nearly identical in implementation to C#. Go has a slightly different implementation with the CGO module, but whatever, it's close enough. Just step back and remember that, in general, calling into C code is trivial in every language, since it has to be: all these languages will eventually have to hit libc / user32.dll / whatever.
C++ is a totally different story. You can't work with C++ libraries with P/Invoke, that's true... But you also can't work with C++ libraries using Rust or Go, either. Nor Python, Java, Javascript, or really any other popular cross-platform language.
C++ dynamic libraries are really challenging to call into for a variety of reasons. Virtual functions, multiple inheritance, RTTI, name-mangling, struct/class layout, vtable placement, ABI differences, runtimes, etc all make calling into precompiled C++ libraries a nightmare.
In fact, the only way I know of working with pre-compiled C++ libraries is with languages that target specific operating system / compiler collections. E.g., Objective-C++/Swift from Apple, and C++/CLI from Microsoft. These are obviously not cross-platform solutions, since they depend on knowing the exact compiler configuration used to build those libraries in the first place.
For every other language, you either need to manually build C shim libs that you can call into using the C-based approach above, or if you have access to the C++ source code, creating wrappers around it and building it into a module (for example, using pybind11 in Python).
2 replies →
You are jumping over a few facts there.
P/Invoke was born as J/Direct on J++, it became P/Invoke after the lawsuit, and Cool project turned into C#.
Managed C++ Extensions in .NET 1.0 got replaced by C++/CLI on .NET 2.0, it was a .NET Core 3.1 milestone to support it, and has recently been updated up to C++20, minus modules.
Still heavily used among .NET community on Windows.
Meanwhile the native C++/CX and C++/WinRT, both failed their adoption efforts.
3 replies →
Interestingly, the Rust windows crate is generated from an MSIL assembly. And same metadata might be used to generate C# bindings thanks to cswin32 [1] project. The meta-assembly generation (Win32 metadata project) is based on clangsharp and it's fairly straightforward to generate interop code for native Windows libraries. Some time ago I described this process on my blog for the detours library [2]
[1] https://github.com/microsoft/CsWin32
[2] https://lowleveldesign.org/2023/11/23/generating-c-bindings-...
2 replies →
Windows and Office never adopted .NET for client code in the first place except for the Longhorn period in the mid-00s, which burned them and put them off it. If that didn't stop .NET in the two decades between then and now, I'm not sure why it would today. Actually, Windows is just now starting to adopt C# now that AOT is supported (I think the new native Copilot app is C#).
Many Windows Server admin tools (such as Server Manager or Virtual Machine Connection) and MMC snap-ins (e.g. Event Viewer, Hyper-V Manager) are written in .NET Framework 4. PowerShell is .NET Framework 4. Everyone’s favorite bloated IDE (Visual Studio) is .NET Framework 4 as well.
In the Office land, Excel’s Power Query is .NET Framework 4.
Adopting the modern .NET is probably harder due to its lifecycle.
5 replies →
Anders Hejlsberg, a main architect on C# & TS, stated somewhere that they re-wrote the TS Compiler in Go because the syntax was the closest to how it was originally written and allowed re-writing to be easiest. He has a great write up of it somewhere on GitHub.
Microsoft is an insanely huge company. There teams seem to be able to use whatever works best for the project/team.
The old XKCD comic of org charts in big tech shows Microsoft as a bunch of people aiming guns at each other for a reason. They'll have 5 teams making 5 competing products sometimes. That's the culture I'm aware of. I'm not aware of the dogfooding culture you are suggesting.
Yeah, and then at BUILD 2025 session, he ended up explaining how they had to rewrite all the data structures, due to the less capable type system from Go versus Typescript.
So the gain isn't as much as what is being sold.
Meanwhile Azure has no issues using AI based translation to port C++ projects into Rust, which they could have done in a similar way to port into C#.
Also, Go has a less capable tooling as C# for WebAssembly, due to Blazor efforts, the team has invested quite a lot into it.
It remains questionable what will they do for the in browser playgrounds and editors use cases.
1 reply →
Not sure I agree on the adoption problem. A few medium sized client projects are nothing compared to the massive internal .NET codebases Microsoft has that run some of their largest services.
.NET team members have acknowledged this on podcast interviews, .NET Rocks, Nick Chapsas, The Unhadled Exception, among possibly others.
I would not touch C# unless you are already using it. Microsoft proves over and over it cannot be trusted in what they say. Watch what they do:
- basically dont use ant UI framework they say is the future and they are not using themselves - be vary of the future of some of it stuff like C#
C# has been around a long enough time and Microsoft's teams over that time have done a pretty good job making upgrading each version easy.
As long as the current leadership in the C# & .NET teams remain, it's a very safe language and framework to use. They also deserve huge kudos to API & performance improvements the past decade since moving on from .NET Framework 4.x, which still runs fine.
They also have a lot of internal & external users using it.
Oh I learned this the hard way. Managed DirectX, XNA, Creators Club, Windows Store, shared profit motive, fair business practices, Project Natal/Kinect, Azure, and finally… .Net. Yup, Microsoft loves developers… loves their subscriptions.
I know, so sad, could have been a great opportunity.
Just like every CNCF project that Azure contributes to, written in Go or Rust, which could have been great carrots to further .NET's adoption.
I blame historic microsoft for their anti-oss stance. It kneecapped the .net ecosystem for over a decade and created an attitude of "if it isn't in .NET, I won't use it".
That has certainly played a role, however that is common to Windows development culture in general.
The 3x "Developers !" meme isn't for nothing, Microsoft just like Apple (and NeXT), always a full stack development experience story.
Everything that one needs is there on the full Visual Studio Professional, and then there was the ecosystem of small indie developers and MS Partners building on top of that.
That is quite different from UNIX FOSS culture, and has also been a friction point to those that went Apple without understanding that also have that on their DNA, regardless of OS X foundations.
I agree as well. The hostile attitude towards OSS under Ballmer led to this. Nadella had the correct approach and a year later, started repairing those bridges, joining the Linux Foundation.
Many things under Satya also feel like good old Microsoft, like lack of GUI frameworks for GNU/Linux, killing VS4Mac after the rewrite, dotnet watch drama, profiling tools being VS only,...
4 replies →