.NET MAUIが不人気な原因なんなの？

.NET MAUIが不人気な原因なんなの？ (500ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
通常表示 512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割ﾚｽ栞
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｡

489: デフォルトの名無しさん [sage] 2025/03/18(火) 21:37:29.28 ID:I22nXZBI

https://github.com/microsoft/typescript-go/discussions/411#discussioncomment-12476218

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.

http://mevius.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/tech/1712104264/489

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 0.019s