EgorBo

Principal Engineer at Microsoft working on .NET runtime.

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

in .NET 11.0 we've landed many changes in JIT (applies to NAOT too) to optimize redundant bound checks to make safe code as fast as unsafe (can be tracked via reduce-unsafe label https://t.co/LmGsXEYrPJ). Example: https://t.co/K0F2dZZe4j

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@konradkokosa Welcome to the team 😎

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@panoukos41 Can you elaborate? I don't think I understand what you mean

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

TL;DR on the upcoming changes in C# vNext for 'unsafe' (blog post https://t.co/Mvh6Sqns8j)

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@ayende I'm not sure I fully understand the question and how it's related to unsafe, but my answer is: SafeHandle 🙃

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@EnZistenZ 1) HPC doesn't have to be unsafe in C# - example https://t.co/FS7bFf8fHq (and a hundred of similar changes under reduce-unsafe label) 2) the reason is very clear - know all the places where you intentionally do things that can easily break/introduce CVEs.

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@EnZistenZ we debated a lot on this and decided to follow Rust (aka the most memory safe language) and learn from their experience. See https://t.co/yiBtEm42hb

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@hexawyz @KooKiz I am not sure I understand what exactly you were expecting from this feature

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@hexawyz @KooKiz There should be no reason to use unsafe (except for a tiny layer around pinvokes). We've made a lot of efforts over the last few years improving perf of 100% safe code to be on par with unsafe. 1 unsafe usage is enough to introduce a terrible CVE (most CVEs are memory-safety rel.

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@hexawyz @KooKiz forcing developers to audit & refactor all unsafe code is a huge benefit. In modern C# there are way too many unsafe things that most people don't even realize how dangerous they're

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@KooKiz My fav. part is this (and it makes sense if you think about it from the new design's perspective) 🙃

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@torn_hoof @nietras1 We're working on the migration story, but it will still require some manual audit of all unsafe code and this is by definition an inconvinience for those who write a lot of unsafe code (we want to minimize that in the .NET ecosystem).

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@nietras1 We want to make sure developers (and AI) are aware when they deal with unsafe and mark those places, the UX can probably be improved with unsafe-as-expression, but that's not the goal. We also improved a lot of things in the JIT for safe code along the way.

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@TeksEdge All these "create a game from scratch" benchmarks never correlate with what I see when I ask an LLM to fix a bug in a real world app 🙂 E.g. GPT is so clever for everyone here on X but for me in 9 out 10 attempts Opus just a mile better.

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@xoofx I usually just vibe-code my own API clients in such cases. E.g. google forces everyone to use their new Interactions API but there is no C# support in their SDK https://t.co/WmVBeDMLiS

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@oldmanuk @tomwarren Copilot CLI has the same models. Harness is +/- the same

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@damageboy @ptr_to_joel nothing is more permanent than a temporary fix :-)

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@kskrygan I'm very skeptical about the "1 month" part. Today, the only way to get something remotely as smart as Opus is to get 20x H200 GPUs (say, for 16-bit Kimi K2.6 with a usable context length). I predict the gap will always be too big to prefer local, unfortunately.

[EgorBo @EgorBo]

@_jakubchmura @igorimx @kskrygan Benchmarks are uselss, though. None of those are even close to opus 4.5 in real world tasks