Wouter raises an interesting point about many-language support. It doesn’t quite work with something as low-level as WebAssembly, but the original hope for .NET was to be a “skinnable language” framework to which any language could be compiled, interoperably with others.https://twitter.com/wvo/status/1084290688861102081 …
-
-
Tim, both. Net and the compilers are open-sourced. How about writing C# extensions as you would for OpenGL extensions? You will have the best of both worlds, accommodating existing knowledgebase/tools and something sexy to UE. ^^
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Moreover, the attack surface of things like WebAssembly is probably a security problem you don't want to have to deal with.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thats exactly what I'm talking about... Not. Lol luckily god sent some overlord-nerds. Without them we would be screwed
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How does the new .NET Core AOT change this outlook? With no runtime required and the ability to expose native interops, we've seen it's easier to integrate managed code directly into lower-level code bases. To the point at least we could call C# code in Rust with little overhead.
-
That’s an improvement. It’s still tricky around C++ holding pointers to garbage collectible data, C++ collections vs C# collections, etc.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.