 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/mono-28-released-with-full-support-for-c-40.ars
Very cool.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/10/2010 6:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/mono-28-released-with-full-support-for-c-40.ars
>
>
> Very cool.
>
Could be handy, well spotted. :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
>
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/mono-28-released-with-full-support-for-c-40.ars
until the headline tomorrow reads: "Microsoft releases C# 5.0"
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>>
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/mono-28-released-with-full-support-for-c-40.ars
>
>
> until the headline tomorrow reads: "Microsoft releases C# 5.0"
Actually, when I first read this, I thought Mono had released C# 5.0, which
is why I gave it the subject-line I did.
However, each version of C# really does stand on its own. If you just avoid
the 5.0 stuff until Mono catches up, you're good. It's not like people
aren't using 10-year-old C standards.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Darren New escreveu:
> >>
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/mono-28-released-with-full-support-for-c-40.ars
> >
> >
> > until the headline tomorrow reads: "Microsoft releases C# 5.0"
>
> Actually, when I first read this, I thought Mono had released C# 5.0, which
> is why I gave it the subject-line I did.
a-ha! Still, I heard they out-.NETed Microsoft a bit by bringing SSE SIMD
vector operations, no?
> However, each version of C# really does stand on its own. If you just avoid
> the 5.0 stuff until Mono catches up, you're good. It's not like people
> aren't using 10-year-old C standards.
....with modern libs. Better than using essentially same old libs with a new
incompatible lang every two years or so for the sake of innovation -- as if
absorbing old features from more bright languages counts as innovation...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> a-ha! Still, I heard they out-.NETed Microsoft a bit by bringing SSE SIMD
> vector operations, no?
I don't know. I know that they did the silly thing and asked the application
programmer to make the decision instead of the compiler. :-) How that
manages to be at the application source-code level for C# I can't imagine. I
suspect it's interacting with the AOT compilation instead of (for some
reason) being a compiler command-line switch or something.
>> However, each version of C# really does stand on its own. If you just avoid
>> the 5.0 stuff until Mono catches up, you're good. It's not like people
>> aren't using 10-year-old C standards.
>
> ....with modern libs.
Even without modern libs. Or at least not modern standard libs. I'm saying
that using C# 4.0 isn't really a problem for people writing their own code,
even when C# 5.0 comes out. Why would it be?
> Better than using essentially same old libs with a new
> incompatible lang every two years or so for the sake of innovation -- as if
> absorbing old features from more bright languages counts as innovation...
Here, you forgot this:
</rantflame>
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Here, you forgot this:
>
> </rantflame>
yes, thanks. I'm always messing up with tags...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
