Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    No, it isn't, but you already know this and are only trolling.
    So you deny that I can call Digia and exchange $$$ for a Qt-edition stripped of some copyleft terms AKA Qt Commercial? LOL you are really cornering yourself now

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
      So you deny that I can call Digia and exchange $$$ for a Qt-edition stripped of some copyleft terms AKA Qt Commercial? LOL you are really cornering yourself now
      So you deny that I can head over to qt-project.org and obtain a LGPL edition of Qt AKA Qt Free? LOL you are really cornering yourself now

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
        So you deny that I can head over to qt-project.org and obtain a LGPL edition of Qt AKA Qt Free? LOL you are really cornering yourself now
        So the same is with Mono. Mono is free software. The same Xobotos OS (Android Java libraries ported to C#) and all their stack. When Qt was at Nokia, all Nokia tools that were working with Qt were F/OSS?

        I develop with MonoDevelop and I see no problem for most of my cross-platform development to use VS as main IDE and to import flawlessly to MD and to do the build, etc.

        The worst part is that MonoDevelop is soon to be a 10 years old project and people did not care much in Linux world about it (and Mono in general), so the parent company will spend more development time to profitable tools.

        I'm curious Digia if it will develop with the same pace still (as Nokia did) to QtCreator and their Qt stack.

        One part which I really don't understand: why Qt is compared with Mono most of the times? I'm an ex-Qt developer and I'm an C# developer. I see weaknesses and strength of both frameworks.

        In many ways I see MonoDevelop having an edge for quick&dirty project that will grow, compared with Qt. With C# you don't have to play with macros for QObject, slots, and such, you have a GC and some services with very few libraries, which themselves are a breeze to work with C# (I talk here about Xml+Reflection, Dependency Injection, Database connectivity, or a simple web server). So, if you have a database application or a web service, you can import it from C#/Visual studio, you recompile with Mono and you add Gtk# UI on it. This looks to me a natural path of development of Mono applications to Linux (or Mac OS X). The code in C# is in many cases smaller and more clear than the C++ equivalent and a great experience (that can be given by Visual Studio + a plugin like JustCode, Resharper or CodeRush) in writing this code.

        Qt has other advantages, mostly: you know upfront that the application has to look the same (or very similar) in all platforms and performance is a concern. I see Qt to enrich a huge C++ codebase with a fancy UI, but if you have to start from scrach and the raw performance is not your ultimate concern, I don't see any company to pick Qt for a desktop application. Developers can create the UI with QML and QWidgets, and write in C++ all the performance sensitive code. After that you're good to go and recompile on every platform Qt is supported. Even Qt will start a bit slower to develop with, is a bit more verbose (because of C++), but at the end, it is modular, it has fairly few bugs and as C++ is the core of the language, sensitive algorithms (like for example a picture processing algorithm) can give the snappiness most users may want.
        Last edited by ciplogic; 02-22-2013, 02:54 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
          So you deny that I can head over to qt-project.org and obtain a LGPL edition of Qt AKA Qt Free? LOL you are really cornering yourself now
          LOL. You dont know what Copyleft is do you? It is not the existence of GPL. It is the absence of loopholes making the code available at non-restrictive license to others than rightful copyright holders.
          Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-22-2013, 03:13 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
            One part which I really don't understand: why Qt is compared with Mono most of the times? I'm an ex-Qt developer and I'm an C# developer.
            Technical differences aside there is more similarty than you think.

            Both requires assignment of broad license or copyright.

            Both are increasingly focusing on nonlinux markets to increase volume.

            Both offer customer support to avoid GPL/LGPL/free software licenses.

            Both offer premium versions to paying customers; Thus discriminating against free users.

            Both makes closed source add in modules.

            Both have business models depending on this madness to continue.

            Both have track records of making disruptive changes to their business models. Often to the worse.


            The trust level is extremely low.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
              Technical differences aside there is more similarty than you think.

              Both requires assignment of broad license or copyright.

              Both are increasingly focusing on nonlinux markets to increase volume.

              Both offer customer support to avoid GPL/LGPL/free software licenses.

              Both offer premium versions to paying customers; Thus discriminating against free users.

              Both makes closed source add in modules.

              Both have business models depending on this madness to continue.

              Both have track records of making disruptive changes to their business models. Often to the worse.


              The trust level is extremely low.
              So you were an avid user of Mono until 2011?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by directhex View Post
                So you were an avid user of Mono until 2011?
                No. Just like Qt; It smells too much of Your risk, Our gain.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                  No. Just like Qt; It smells too much of Your risk, Our gain.
                  Prior to the release of MonoTouch, there was no commercial version of Mono. Just Free Software. None of your arguments applied. You used that extensively, right?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by directhex View Post
                    Prior to the release of MonoTouch, there was no commercial version of Mono. Just Free Software. None of your arguments applied. You used that extensively, right?
                    No. Not really.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                      No. Not really.
                      So your pissing and moaning about things in which you aren't even invested achieves what, precisely?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by directhex View Post
                        So your pissing and moaning about things in which you aren't even invested achieves what, precisely?
                        Mono had the assignment policy before this. So this was obvious an untriggered bomb. No sane person sits on a bomb. mySQL, OpenOfficeorg, Qt already exploded into unpleasness. Why should anyone eat the Mono bait?

                        Dont you get it? Unfair license policies is just the step before you get raped. Just say no.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                          Mono had the assignment policy before this.

                          So this was obvious an untriggered bomb. No sane person sits on a bomb. mySQL, OpenOfficeorg, Qt already exploded into unpleasness. Why should anyone eat the Mono bait?

                          Dont you get it? Unfair license policies is just the step before you get raped. Just say no.
                          You don't seem to understand why people contribute towards, or use, Free Software.

                          This is a reasonably common position, and depressingly common amongst the noisiest of armchair generals.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by directhex View Post
                            This is a reasonably common position, and depressingly common amongst the noisiest of armchair generals.
                            LOL. Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere. It is common knowledge that companies mostly try to avoid assigning copyright(money) to others. Just like many non affiliated hackers wont do it either. E.g. Redhat(biggest company), Linux(prime open source success) and Debian(prime all time community distro).

                            Yeah sure. What an armchair gang ...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                              LOL. Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere. It is common knowledge that companies mostly try to avoid assigning copyright(money) to others. Just like many non affiliated hackers wont do it either. E.g. Redhat(biggest company), Linux(prime open source success) and Debian(prime all time community distro).

                              Yeah sure. What an armchair gang ...
                              Ignoring groups that require copyright assignment such as the FSF and Apache project.

                              And which of us is the Debian Developer?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by directhex View Post
                                Ignoring groups that require copyright assignment such as the FSF and Apache project.

                                And which of us is the Debian Developer?
                                You know very well that assigning to FSF serves to protect copyleft and not circumventing copyleft. And as a deb dev you also know the debate and position of the many devs who refuse to assign away their rights.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X