Rust has a runtime, it's just tiny and auto-bundled (for now). Modern .NET's support for self-contained bundling has gotten pretty good. AOT is getting better too, and AOT-ready code (switch Reflection for Source Generators as much as possible, for instance) can do some very heavy treeshaking of the runtime.

Also, yeah native embedding has gotten somewhat easier in recent years depending on the style of API you want to present to native code. Furthermore both Godot and Unity (differently) embed .NET/C# as options in game development. I certainly expect Typhon is primarily targeting Godot and/or (eventually) Unity (when it finishes switching to coreclr to support more of these features) embedding (but maybe also Stride, a fully C# game engine).

To some extent, this is weirdly a good thing: if you want strictly enforced rules, you may just want to play a videogame instead. D&D succeeds best as a social lubricant enabling a framework in which social gaming (roleplaying) can happen to be "fun". Rarely is strictly following rules "fun", especially socially with friends; the rules in D&D are meant to be guideposts and tools for enough structure that people that want structure find comfort and enough flexibility that "fun" isn't lost in the process.

Which is a long way to say that you probably aren't going to learn the right lessons from a well fuzzed computer spec of the rules, you probably are going to learn more lessons asking the people you play with what rules they find important, to explain things you feel you don't understand, and to suggest which chapters in which books to try to read to best improve your understanding for that group. At the end of the day, if the table seems too hard to play at you might also just be playing with the wrong group, especially if you aren't having fun.

.NET has a huge kitchen sink standard library. Maybe the closer parallel is Python and Python has had periods where it only supported a few named distributions, too. That's not currently the case, but "how the sausage is made" is still a lot grosser than you might expect, with some Distribution Maintainers maintaining entire forks and a lot of the work not done by Python directly. Python is everywhere because it became one of the favorite shell scripting languages of Distribution Maintainers. (Which also exacerbated the Python 2 to 3 migration because entire distros got stuck on 2 while all their shell scripts got rewritten.) (But also if you want to compare Java's cross platform to .NET's I think we need a long digression into how many Java runtimes there are and the strange and subtle incompatibilities of different distro's affiliations to one or another. I also made the mistake of trying to use a Java application as a regular application in my youth of accidentally dealing with deep distro incompatibilities. That was also not fun.)

I get it, you don't have to like .NET. I just think you have an inflated view of what "cross platform" means when it comes to Linux. Linux isn't just one platform. Most things are rebuilt from source constantly because the binary interfaces especially libc's/glibc's under them are constantly shifting like quicksand. See also the messes that are Flatpak and Snap and how much work they've done to try to build around distro incompatibilities (by building increasingly more complex wish-it-were-VMs).

Which sounds funny because C# effectively has gone the other direction. .NET's Code Access Security (CAS) used to heavily penalize unsafe blocks (and unchecked blocks, another relative that C# has that I don't think has a direct Java equivalent), limiting how libraries could use such blocks without extra mandatory code signing and permissions, throwing all sorts of weird runtime exceptions in CAS environments with slightly wrong permissions. CAS is mostly gone today so most C# developers only ever really experience compiler warnings and warnings-as-errors when trying to use unsafe (and/or unchecked) blocks. More libraries can use it for low level things than used to. (But also fewer libraries need to now than used to, thanks to Memory/Span.)

> There is no "fixed" statement and frankly nothing like it all, native code is just not allowed to access managed memory period; instead, you set up an arena to be shared between managed and native code

Yeah, this seems to be an area that .NET has a lot of strengths in. Not just the fixed keyword, but also a direct API for GC pinning/unpinning/locking and many sorts of "Unsafe Marshalling" tools to provide direct access to pointers into managed memory for native code. (Named "Unsafe" in this case because they warrant careful consideration before using them, not because they rely on unsafe blocks of code.)

> MemorySegment is kinda like Memory/Span but harder to actually use because Java's type-erased generics are useless here

It's the ease of use that really makes Memory/Span shine. It's a lot more generally useful throughout the .NET ecosystem (beyond just "foreign function interfaces") to the point where a large swathe of the BCL (Base Class Library; standard library) uses Span in one fashion or another for easy performance improvements (especially with the C# compiler quietly preferring Span/ReadOnlySpan overloads of functions over almost any other data type, when available). Span has been a "quiet performance revolution" under the hood of a lot of core libraries in .NET, especially just about anything involving string searching, parsing, or manipulation. Almost none of those gains have anything to do with calling into native code and many of those performance gains have also been achieved by eliminating native code (and the overhead of transitions to/from it) by moving performance-optimized algorithms that were easier to do unsafely in native code into "safe" C#.

It's really cool what has been going on with Span. It's really wild some of the micro-benchmarks of before/after Span migrations.

Related to the overall topic, it's said Span is one of the reasons Unity wants to push faster to modern .NET, but Unity still has a ways to go to where it uses enough of the .NET coreclr memory model to take real advantage of it.

Also, yeah today Linux support is officially maintained in modern .NET and many corporate environments are quietly using Linux servers and Linux docker containers every day to run their (closed source) projects. Linux support is one of the things that has saved companies money in running .NET, so there's a lot of weird quiet loyalty to it just from a cost cutting standpoint. But you don't hear a lot about that given the closed-source/proprietary nature of those projects. That's why it is sometimes referred to as "dark matter development" from "dark matter developers", a lot of it is out there, a lot of it doesn't get noticed in HN comments and places like that, it's all just quietly chugging along and doesn't seem to impact the overall reputation of the platform.

Unity inherited a much simpler Boehm GC from Mono. Under a (single generation) Boehm GC allocations are a bit more expensive and garbage collection sometimes a lot more expensive. (A Boehm GC was much easier for C++ engine code to understand/interact with, which is also part of why the .NET modernization project for Unity got so complicated and still has such a ways to go left.)

[0] Fun aside: in fact, modern docker advice for .NET is to switch "server applications" to use "Workstation GC" if you need to stack multiple containers on the same host because of differences in expected memory usage.

It's open source. Did you follow the spirit of Linux to file a bug report of as much sense of the crashes as you could make? Most OSS only supports as many distros as people are willing to test and file accurate bug reports (and/or scratch the itch themselves and solve it). It seems a bit unfair to expect .NET to magically have a test matrix including every possible distro when almost nothing else does. (It's what keeps distro maintainers employed, testing other people's apps, too.)

It probably has gotten better since then, for what it is worth. .NET has gotten a lot of hardening on Linux and a lot of companies are relying on Linux servers for .NET apps now.

At the very least there are very tiny Alpine-based containers that run .NET considerably well and are very well tested, so Docker is always a strong option for .NET today no matter what Linux distro you want on the "bare metal" running Docker.

VB.NET's Object was created to support interfacing with COM interop easier. VB.NET's one key niche versus C# for many early years was COM interop through Object.

C#'s dynamic keyword was more directly added as a part of the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime aka System.Dynamic) effort spurred by IronPython. It had the side benefit of making COM interop easier in C#, but the original purpose was better interop with IronPython, IronRuby, and any other DLR language. That's also why under the hood C#'s dynamic keyword supports a lot of DLR complexity/power. You can do a lot of really interesting things with `System.Dynamic.IDynamicMetaObjectProvider` [1]. The DLR's dependency on `System.Linq.Expressions` also points out to how much further in time the DLR was compared to VB.NET's Object which was "just" the VB7 rename of VB6 Variant originally (it did also pick up DLR support).

The DLR hasn't been invested into in a while, but it was really cool and a bit of an interesting "alternate universe" to still explore.

[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.dynamic....

Big companies believe that they have plenty of IPv4 space, especially because they've always been lax in how they read IPv4 RFCs and use IPv4 routing behind corporate firewalls. Big companies also have the most cash to buy IPv4 blocks as they go to auction. Big companies have massive firewalls and strict VPNs which also insulate them from IPv4 scarcity.

IPv4 leases don't impact enough companies' bottom lines today that they need to assess IPv6 support.

Solving those economic incentive problems would likely be a massive sociopolitical problem: you would need IANA and the RIRs to agree to inflate costs in various ways (and in the short term that might have done a lot of harm to small countries already facing IPv4 inequity and their RIRs that lost the very earliest IPv4 assignment lotteries). You'd probably need new RFCs and political enforcement to support things like "taxing" company to company IPv4 block assignments. You'd probably need collusion or regulation from the big "Cloud Providers" to enforce higher costs on IPv4-only networking.

It would take those kind of "strong handed" tactics to speed up IPv6 adoption in corporate networks. Waiting for the "invisible hand" of the "free market" can be very slow and takes patience. That's mostly what we've been seeing with IPv6 adoption: the "invisible hand" is a lot slower than some people predicted. Especially engineers that hoped technical superiority alone would be a market winner.

mDNS supports IPv6 just fine/works on IPv6 only LANs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_DNS

There are some nice benefits of SLAAC over DHCP such as modest privacy: if device addresses are randomized they become harder to guess/scan; if there's not a central server with a registration list of every device even more so (the first S, Stateless). That's a great potential win for general consumers and a far better privacy strategy than NAT44 accidental (and somewhat broken) privacy screening. It's at odds with corporate device management strategies where top-down assignment "needs to be the rule" and device privacy is potentially a risk, but that doesn't make SLAAC a bad idea as it just increases the obvious realization that consumer needs and big corporate needs are both very different styles of sub-networks of the internet and they are conflicting a bit. (Also those conflicting interests are why consumer equipment is leading the vanguard to IPv6 and corporate equipment is languishing behind in command-and-control IPv4 enclaves.)

If you need to remember random WAN IPv6 addresses without being able to use DNS or at least a hosts file you've probably got a bunch of other more pressing problems.

(Also it says a lot that right now my two biggest sources of daily spam are Google Calendar Notifications and Random Firebase Accounts. Both of those further leave me questioning if Google's approach to spam filtering is sincere.)

The GAC and certain CAS configurations would require paid certificates, too. Certainly the requirement of paid certificates can be seen as a part of how both of those eventually fell out of favor. That is another of the things I felt UWP missed learning from .NET. Developers do generally dislike code signing certificates and try to avoid them.

Also to be fair, UWP had a rather streamlined certificate system if you targeted only the Store and let the Store manage your certificate chain. It was even a little bit easier to use than Apple's similar App Store management of XCode certificates. Not that that was a high bar to clear.

> It was also not a good look that Microsoft's own flagship applications like Visual Studio and Office did not show any progress toward adopting UWP

There was some progress. Office involves a lot of teams working at different paces and sometimes extremely different codebases. OneNote was fully UWP for a while and was at one point considered a flagship and testbed for UWP "Fluent Design" (both before and after the shift from touch-first to the over-correction to "it's just a desktop framework that sometimes is touch friendly"). Several new Office apps were written UWP first, including the "Office Hub" app that became called just "Office" and now is even more confusing called "Microsoft Copilot 365 app". "Outlook (New)" has always been React Native, but as a React Native project, it ran entirely in UWP, too, for a while. It was said to have been one of the drivers for deep UWP support in React native at the time. There were also the React Native-based Word, Excel, and PowerPoint "mini" versions that ran entirely in UWP. Those are said to have influenced more of the real codebases pushing towards React Native, but did not try to replace the original codebases in the same way that "Outlook (New)" today is overtaking "Outlook (Classic)".

There were a lot of strategy problems with UWP, but adoption was further along in some areas than it looked.

That relates to some of my criticism that maybe UWP could have used more .NET veterans because that was one of the problems with the CAS sandbox. For the most part the CAS sandbox was "opt-in" and yeah software developers through ego, hubris, and everything else will most often declare "my app/library is a special snowflake and needs access to everything!" So even if things opt-in to additional security controls like CAS, no one tests or builds for Production in a CAS sandbox so even things that claimed to support CAS threw runtime exceptions all over the place to the point no one could trust CAS to the point were CAS died for being practically useless overhead because no one both opted in and knew how to test it.

UWP had a lot of good ideas. It's insistence that it didn't have much to learn from .NET's mistakes was not one of them.

"Sandbox-first" even made some sense as a direction to work because it is harder to add a sandbox after the fact than to start with one, which is one of the core lessons learned from XP trying to sandbox some of the insecurities in Win32 and getting caught in a lot of complications. (The "sandbox-first" of UWP wasn't even that different under the hood from the XP "sandbox" of Folder/Registry Redirection, just a little better hardened.) Microsoft needed a lot better messaging up front if they had expected to allow more apps to leave the sandbox eventually. But Microsoft probably did believe the UWP sandbox was a better and safer experience for consumers.

But yeah, what's left of Package Identity outside of the sandbox feels like it includes several classic mistakes from .NET's CAS/GAC era, and also seems to point out that Sinofsky was wrong about WinRT "respecting the past" when it failed to learn from that era because it didn't trust .NET's history.