.NET MAUIが不人気な原因なんなの？ (500ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
抽出解除 必死ﾁｪｯｶｰ(本家) (べ) 自ID ﾚｽ栞 あぼーん
ﾘﾛｰﾄﾞ規制です｡10分ほどで解除するので､他のﾌﾞﾗｳｻﾞへ避難してください｡
488: 03/18(火)21:32 ID:I22nXZBI(1/2) AAS
外部ﾘﾝｸ:x.com
C# was a top contender for the port, as was Rust. But both would have been a rewrite more than a port. We picked Go because it was the path of least resistance to 10x for *this* particular code base. It's a win for OSS. We couldn't have done this in the past!
489: 03/18(火)21:37 ID:I22nXZBI(2/2) AAS
外部ﾘﾝｸ:github.com
The TypeScript compiler's move to Go was influenced by specific technical requirements, such as the need for structural compatibility with the existing JavaScript-based codebase, ease of memory management, and the ability to handle complex graph processing efficiently. After evaluating numerous languages and making multiple prototypes — including in C# — Go emerged as the optimal choice, providing excellent ergonomics for tree traversal, ease of memory allocation, and a code structure that closely mirrors the existing compiler, enabling easier maintenance and compatibility.
In a green field, this would have been a totally different conversation. But this was not a green field - it's a port of an existing codebase with 100 man-years of investment. Yes, we could have redesigned the compiler in C# from scratch, and it would have worked. In fact, C#'s own compiler, Roslyn, is written in C# and bootstraps itself. But this wasn't a compiler redesign, and the TypeScript to Go move was far more automatable and more one-to-one in its mapping. Our existing codebase is all functions and data structures - no classes. Idiomatic Go looked just like our existing codebase so the port was greatly simplified.
上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴
ｽﾚ情報 赤ﾚｽ抽出 画像ﾚｽ抽出 歴の未読ｽﾚ
ぬこの手 ぬこTOP 0.027s