5 ms·
While the language itself doesn't seem very interesting (which is perhaps the point). The idea of building a new language on top of the CLR runtime feels very w
by chabad360 2mo ago
While the language itself doesn't seem very interesting (which is perhaps the point). The idea of building a new language on top of the CLR runtime feels very wise. Instead of a new language suffering from a lack of ecosystem, you get everything else that's already built, even in other (CLR-based) languages. This does leave me wondering what the trade off is. Do you sacrifice any potential language features for CLR compatibility? Or provided you can get it compile, it will run?
Also, are there other language ecosystems with a similar capability?
- jluysvi 2mo agoThe JVM has a ton of languages built on it.
- iLemming 2mo ago[flagged]
- applfanboysbgon 2mo agoI mean, one trade-off is obvious: you get the drawbacks of the runtime too. Any .NET program is opting you into tens of MBs of binary/lib size and RAM usage for what a C program could do in <1mb. This completely rules out using in the language in certain domains eg. embedded.
- paddim8 2mo ago.NET programs can be AOT compiled
- applfanboysbgon 2mo agoI am well aware of that, given that I routinely ship such programs. Compiling ahead of time does not change the fact that the .NET runtime is orders of magnitude larger than a C runtime.
- VikingCoder 2mo ago[dead]
- metaltyphoon 2mo agoFunny enough, in their both latest versions. C# AOT has a smaller runtime than Go one
- tcfhgj 2mo ago> This does leave me wondering what the trade off is. Microsoft
- pjmlp 2mo agoThat was the original goal of CLR, hence Common Language Runtime, even though nowadays it feels more like it means C# Language Runtime. https://news.microsoft.com/source/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-developer-support-for-microsoft-net-on-display-at-professional-developers-conference-2001/ https://news.microsoft.com/source/2001/10/22/massive-industr...