Hacker News Reader

Comment by surajrmal | Hacker News Reader

They cited code style and porting as reasons to use go over c#, not performance.

I didn't say it was very performance critical, go and c# are both good enough for us in this regard. The problem is that, when evaluating the whole thing, they decided against c#, that is problematic here.

But they not stated it is <because> of C#'s performance, so I don't think this is THAT problematic. But I agree that it would be fine to see them dogfeeding on their language for such a massive project, and a project that is even related to TypeScript (as it inspired it in some features), it is a shame they don't do it, but it is also the case for many of their projects (like, they are even pushing react native for apps nowadays), so I think at some level it's really fine.

> But they not stated it is <because> of C#'s performance

But I just said my point is not about performance at all! It is about the whole package. Performance of c# and go are both enough for my usecase, same for java and c obviously. They just told us that they don't think the whole package makes sense, and disowned the AOT compilation.

But you said: > I was trying ot push .net as our possible language for somehow high performance executables. Seeing this means I'll stop trying to advocate for it. If even this team doesn't believe in it.

Which made me naturally think your point was, indeed, about performance. Although as it appears to be, I'm wrong, so it's fair enough.

Also cross platform support

Reply on news.ycombinator.com