On: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

[LtWorf]

Basically it's not included in any distribution. Mostly for license problems.

Which means anything you write with it can't be included in any distribution.

It's quite limiting. Basically it's only useful for proprietary software shipped by 3rd party.

[neonsunset → LtWorf]

The entirety of https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet (which is a VMR for full-source build of Roslyn, runtime and everything else that goes into runtime-only and SDK packages) is MIT, which is as permissive as it gets, save for CC0 or Unlicense.

Quick search shows that SDK and runtime packages are available in the official feeds for

Archlinux: https://archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&q=dotnet

Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/dotnet8.0/

Ubuntu: https://pkgs.org/search/?q=dotnet

I always wondered what is the motivation behind the negative comments like these on .NET submissions. Is this because .NET is mostly made by MS employees instead of Google (which is an AdTech company) or Oracle (which has a license trap JDK distribution)?

[LtWorf → neonsunset]

> I always wondered what is the motivation

This is the motivation ↓

    apt install dotnet-sdk-8.0
    Error: Unable to locate package dotnet-sdk-8.0
    Error: Couldn't find any package by glob 'dotnet-sdk-8.0'

[neonsunset → LtWorf]

A lot of otherwise excellent software is not present in, for example, official Debian feeds. As a sibling comment pointed out, that’s no reason to throw a tantrum and is a trivially solvable issue.

[LtWorf → neonsunset]

Lol trivially… unless you want to distribute your software that is.

[neonsunset → LtWorf]

You can make a single file executable that does not require any dependencies with just the following. No runtime is required on the host, which I assume you allude to as lacking necessary package in the official feed might cause issues if it's required (and given it's present in everything that is not Debian, it is a Debian issue and something Debian must address).

JIT: dotnet publish -p:PublishSingleFile=true -p:PublishTrimmed=true

AOT: dotnet publish -p:PublishAot=true -p:OptimizationPreference=Speed*

Use -o to specify destination.

By default targets the host's OS RID, but can be overriden with e.g. `-r linux-musl-arm64`. Cross-architecture compilation is supported within OS, and there is a nuget package that switches the publish to Zig toolchain to allow publishing for Linux under Windows without relying on WSL2: https://www.nuget.org/packages/PublishAotCross This only concerns AOT as .NET uses the same linker to produce the final binary as your regular C/C++ code. It is a true native executable through and through that is understood by all standard tooling like native code profilers. For JIT binaries, anything that .NET supports can be published for under any other OS and ISA.

* my recommendation as the size impact is negligible but codegen quality in edge cases improves quite a bit. Other flags that may be useful are -p:IlcInstructionSet=x86-x64-v3 (AVX2 and friends) and -p:IlcFoldIdenticalMethodBodies=true (it's disabled by default because it can mess up stack traces, naturally, in .NET 9, disabling stack trace information enables it as well).

[LtWorf → neonsunset]

> You can make a single file executable that does not require any dependencies

Which is not distribution friendly. Thanks for finally understanding you were wrong all along.

[neonsunset → LtWorf]

> Which is not distribution friendly.

Why is that?

[LtWorf → neonsunset]

Can such a monstruosity be part of a distribution? No. Then...

[neonsunset → LtWorf]

What makes it a monstrosity? Why should it be (or not be) a part of distribution?

[metaltyphoon → neonsunset]

Don’t bother he is just saying things in bad faith.

[LtWorf → metaltyphoon]

I think you replied to the wrong comment.