2 days ago, Dan wrote

My personal thoughts are that for indie developers, we provide a totally free way to watch *every* session online in < 24 hours. That's unheard of in our industry. The total cost is $0.

If you are an indie developer, then I totally understand the importance of reducing costs. Traveling and airfare to an event can even cost as much as a pass to a conference like Build ($250/night for hotel, $400-1,200 on airfare depending on domestic vs international, food, etc).

If I was an indie developer, I would:

• Watch the live streams and ask questions during live Q&A
• Watch all the sessions that are relevant to me
• Attend FREE Microsoft training like our 1-2 day dev camps on Windows, Phone, Azure, Web - http://www.devcamps.ms/. The best thing about these camps is that they are so many that you may not have to incur any travel costs to attend.

 

 

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

http://i.imgur.com/4elNV6e.jpg?1

Looks like I'm missing most of the functionality described. Also - does the app truly not support the search charm, or is that just my version too?

posted by dcuccia

3 days ago, schroedl wrote

"For better or for worse, desktop apps are desktop apps." -- this quote makes me sad.

I feel similarly. We have legacy dependencies which won't pass the restricted WinRT API. Here's hoping that we'll get language projections and native XAML for desktop use (or side-loaded enterprise apps which can be compiled with fewer restrictions).

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsplaisted/archive/2012/08/27/how-to-make-portable-class-libraries-work-for-you.aspx

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me that if the Rx team has a hard time creating portable libraries (e.g. last-minute change in binary deployment/partitioning strategy between RC and RTM), the rest of us are probably going to do it wrong every time. I lead a small OSS .NET library project, and it's pretty intimidating to come up with a plan for deploying device-specialized libraries that themselves depend on platform-specific BCL classes, not to mention the collisions Bart mentions between portable and non-portable binaries.

This "platform enlightenment" and versioning stuff seems to be emerging as a pattern in itself - a virtual requirement of the new level of platform fragmentation in .NET. What's the hope that we can get tooling, or at least guidance, to help other library devs out there on this topic? I presume the platform specialization and discovery process would be implemented with something like MEF. Can you share the bootstrapper process for this? Can we expect IJW-like behavior in a future major .NET version?

Thanks in advance for any help or guidance.

David

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

Disappointed to hear today that MS is blocking the C++11 compiler in VS 11 Express from targeting desktop applications. How can MS supposedly support OSS so strongly with Codeplex, ASP.NET, etc, and then turn around and do this?

posted by dcuccia

5 hours ago

I expected to find a video here...

If you go to the live feed and scroll back to about hour 2:15 or so, you'll see Tim's talk

posted by dcuccia

1 hour ago, MartinBa wrote

*snip*

If this mode incurs any performance cost, people won't use it. If this mode breaks when compiling any 3rd party or "legacy" headers, people won't use it. Look at the mess we already have with managing warnings/warning levels and static analysis annotations ...

Still, I'm very keen to see what the outcome of such an endeavor could be

restrict pure?

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

I do have (an admittedly biased) comment on the recent C9 "many-core" discussions. I really appreciate your encouraging discussion on many-core, Charles, in this interview and others. There seems, however, to be a supposition in the interviews that "one day in the future" we'll have many-core at our disposal. We obviously already have extremely powerful many-core processors in our everyday gaming rigs - NVIDIA and AMD have revolutionized a large set of scientific computing problems, and a cross-platform stream computing language has been ratified and adopted my many of the major players. Stream computing seems to be almost intentionally absent from the discussion. It's especially poignant to me in these two videos when discussing Dryad's capabilities for re-structuring expression tree nodes or pipelining computations based on the skew of the data - couldn't these strategies also help when targeting architectures such as the GPU (or Cell...I guess)?

I know you've covered the Microsoft Accelerator project in the distant past, and I know Dryad was built to target systems without shared memory, and I know parts of PFX are built specifically with CLR architectures in mind, and I knowcurrent GPU architectures have PCI-Express bandwidth limitations...but Map-Reduce has been shown to map to the GPU quite readily for some applications, Brahma and C$ languages have shown you can efficiently map high-level lamdas in managed code to GPU code, and DX Compute (though unmanaged) is here..

So, in the end, I guess my question is: Can we have a C9 discussion about how I might soon write something as "simple" as:

myVeryLargeArray.AsParallel().OnGPU().Select( x => a*x +b); ?

Thanks for listening - keep up the great work!!

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia

posted by dcuccia