Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mono 2.10, Moonlight 4 Preview 1 Released

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

  • #31
    @ciplogic

    It's logical monotheistic croud trolls to spread the word of an only true way (ms). Big B bless you my child.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
      Yes and no.
      ciplogic

      Location
      Madrid, Spain

      Hello, Miguel! Welcome to the forums!

      Miguel, you sure build lots of stuff on top of Volcano!

      You also advertise to build even more stuff, based on how much you already build there.

      But could you please provide a legal paper before, that allows to use the stuff out of volcano range and original land lord will have no issues soever? I mean patents and stuff. Yes, something that you really never want to talk about. Especially not, once MS prohibited any GPL etc. Please do dat.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
        ciplogic

        Location
        Madrid, Spain

        Hello, Miguel! Welcome to the forums!

        Miguel, you sure build lots of stuff on top of Volcano!

        You also advertise to build even more stuff, based on how much you already build there.

        But could you please provide a legal paper before, that allows to use the stuff out of volcano range and original land lord will have no issues soever? I mean patents and stuff. Yes, something that you really never want to talk about. Especially not, once MS prohibited any GPL etc. Please do dat.
        If you just write in Google about my ID you can identify myself(!) and you will see that I contribute in an opensource project (but works sadly only with opensource technologies excluding Windows and .Net). Happily this project for now do not work for Linux for various reasons, including Mono.
        Also, I've wrote things that disagree with Miguel on his page, so taking this into perspective is equal like an alter-ego of Miguel enters on his page to criticize him?!
        At the end, my messages were about reasonable thinking, not biases. I honestly don't like KDE look, but I do think that is an amazing piece of software, so I don't write crap about KDE. Also, I don't attack Nokia for its contributions to Qt or KDE (yes Nokia pay developers for KDE project), and I do think that a lot of technologies to Linux bring more choice than fewer. Why you don't attack the opensourceness of Qt that have also a comercial license? Why don't attack LLVM/CLang that "sneak" into a lot of opensource projects?
        If you care about Mono in general, or even you want to destroy it, simply put public a broken patent (or if you care, put it as a bug report) and make sure that this patent make as much impact as possible.
        Anyway, as you will likely don't, at the end when I use Linux, if Mono will be removed in a distro, I will have to remove Banshee, Gnome Do (I don't use Tomboy Notes) and this will sadden me a little.
        One other cool thing that Mono "brings" is IKVM, and for simple applications (I use to render things based on Sunflow renderer) I will recompile them and I can use it without downloading a much bigger JRE.
        If Mono as it is today will be removed from my distro, I will likely remove my distro from my disk, Windows is a good OS anyway.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          Also, I've wrote things that disagree with Miguel on his page, so taking this into perspective is equal like an alter-ego of Miguel enters on his page to criticize him?!
          That with Miguel was just a joke...

          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          Anyway, as you will likely don't, at the end when I use Linux, if Mono will be removed in a distro, I will have to remove Banshee, Gnome Do (I don't use Tomboy Notes) and this will sadden me a little.
          Tomboy is straight garbage, there a LOT of alternatives to it, written in various languages. If Tomboy would try to match OneNote... then there would be some fun. But again, who needs OneNote with TiddlyWiki etc.
          QuodLibet is better than Banshee, and it is not the only player. Exile, ie K3M/amarok port to Qt is very good. I see no problem here.
          Gnome Do, erm KDE has shown that same is possible with Qt and some Cpp. I see no reason to port it or use other C+GTK based things.

          And I also see no need for .net to write such basic apps.

          And you also need BIG pack of various mono libs and binds - not less of size than JRE. But they have winpe .exe in them ahaha, talk about crossplatform.

          And patents etc, but you know. I would never ever even touch Mono, till I see its real owner behave like an open developer and not slaver a la Caesar.

          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          One other cool thing that Mono "brings" is IKVM, and for simple applications (I use to render things based on Sunflow renderer) I will recompile them and I can use it without downloading a much bigger JRE.
          Last time I used JRE it was magnificent. Programming was way easier than Cpp. Performance was FAST. Documentation was excellent. And it compiled to bytecode very quickly on Sun ultraSPARCs and run well on x86 machine after that.

          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          If Mono as it is today will be removed from my distro
          Use gentoo, put it back. Whats the problem, its linux - its about choices.

          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          Windows is a good OS anyway.
          Good joke too!

          Comment


          • #35
            Last time I used JRE it was magnificent. Programming was way easier than Cpp. Performance was FAST. Documentation was excellent. And it compiled to bytecode very quickly on Sun ultraSPARCs and run well on x86 machine after that.
            Yes, but have the same problems as Mono: is big corporation backed (mostly two: Oracle and IBM) and have typically the same risks with Mono, excluding that Microsoft did said publicly that will not attack Mono (and this will make harder for a patent war).
            Mono is slower than Java, for certain, anyway C#/base classes are well documented (at least via Google, if you hate MonoDoc).
            Mono is a Java like technology with a lot of desktop focus (where Java mostly lacks). Anyway, Java excluding Azureus (which you may agree also that have a lot of desktop replacements as bittorrent clients), most likely users will not use. I do have installed Java (for freemind), but Sunflow with IKVM was in a test to try to make rendering happen on Linux with minimum setup (I've simply copied some IKVM compiled JAR and works with no setup on Linux.
            One personal note about my preferences: I do love Boo language and I use it in a context that depend on the fact that .Net (or Mono on that matter) have JIT capabilities and I do know that I do not have an equivalent technology. The closest counterpart is on Java side, named Mirah, but this will make ugly other parts, like desktop interoperation (I try in my free time to make a Boo/Tao/OpenGL game that will work on Linux). And I've just tried Java but some techniques I do use in .Net (mostly Generics + reflection) have different behavior than expected. At the end, for certain if the game will take shape, someone will say: why not ... (C/C++/JavaScript) but they will likely just complain but not contribute, so no point to ask people what do they prefer. Also, if that game will be playable and fun, even it will have from time to time delays (from GC, on my machine the GC time is likely 20 ms with SGen, if I will allocate things in my main game loop) I think they will not quit the game.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
              Yes, but have the same problems as Mono: is big corporation backed (mostly two: Oracle and IBM) and have typically the same risks with Mono, excluding that Microsoft did said publicly that will not attack Mono (and this will make harder for a patent war).
              Most of us don't trust anything that comes from Microsoft's mouth or anyone associated with them. If you remember the Halloween Documents, MS has laid a plan on how to destroy Linux and Open Source using any means necessary. They've invented the utterly cowardly "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy of dealing with competitors. For all we know, Mono is part of this.

              If you want to trust MS, that's your choice. But all evidence really suggests you shouldn't. You remind me of those characters in disaster movies that go like "nothing's gonna happen, relax". And when the catastrophe hits, they're the first to die. Horribly.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                (I try in my free time to make a Boo/Tao/OpenGL game that will work on Linux).
                Try Boo/OpenTK/OpenGL so you can target Linux/Mac/Windows from the same codebase (and optionally Android/iPhone). It is the successor to Tao and can run applications written for it (through OpenTK.Compatibility).

                There's an awesome 3d engine written in Boo, called KRI Engine. It has an innovative quaternion/shader/GL3-based pipeline and I like it's design a lot - sadly not enough time to use it myself right now.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                  Try Boo/OpenTK/OpenGL so you can target Linux/Mac/Windows from the same codebase (and optionally Android/iPhone). It is the successor to Tao and can run applications written for it (through OpenTK.Compatibility).

                  There's an awesome 3d engine written in Boo, called KRI Engine. It has an innovative quaternion/shader/GL3-based pipeline and I like it's design a lot - sadly not enough time to use it myself right now.
                  Really thanks! One of the rare common sense messages I've got and really helpful and useful!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                    Really thanks! One of the rare common sense messages I've got and really helpful and useful!
                    Unlike the crap like advertising mono. It's enough to copy and paste Qt 'goodies' to show mono is a crap. Or better to run yourself Qt/C++ vs mono app.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      C++ cannot hold a candle to Boo in sheer awesomeness.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                        Unlike the crap like advertising mono. It's enough to copy and paste Qt 'goodies' to show mono is a crap. Or better to run yourself Qt/C++ vs mono app.
                        Please don't misquote anyone and invest your time where your mouth is!
                        I was a C++ programmer till 3 years ago and I do know Qt as I've was a programmer in it. Also I do think that Qt have its power (a thing I've never heard from a person like you on other technologies, like, but not limited to: GObjectIntrospection + Vala/Genie, Qt Quick with QML, Python) and sometimes a hammer cannot solve all problems even is a very powerful tool.
                        Why a guy like me likes (to not say loves) a VM like environment? Is that in complex code memory management is not necesary. For big systems is really relevant! For small systems is relevant as the code is much cleaner with no "guard lock" pattern, no reference counting with weak and full pointers and so on. VM have also some drawbacks and all at the end depend where and how those tools are used.
                        Mono and Moonlight are powerful technologies, showing the power of opensource/free technologies and can be combined with any CLR languages (in my case Boo) and I do know where it stands (and where it doesn't!).
                        For example you can JIT your code using Boo Compiler API: http://boo.codehaus.org/Scripting+wi...g.Compiler+API , you can use type inference. No linker errors, no huge compiling times, and so on. Is just Pyton with specialized native types!
                        In my view Boo is just a next logical step (which seems that C# follow suit with REPL evaluator) on generating code at runtime. I'm not here to convince to you the merits of Boo, is that in some cases a JIT can bring some features that are not possible to get without them in a
                        This can be useful for some, useless for others.
                        For your fun, I will want to ask you why are you so mad? And why are you attacking on a piece of news about a technology that persons? Why you did not attack Oracle when they attacked Google Android?
                        I do understand freedom, I really, really do, but I cannot live a life with nightmares that once Microsoft will attack OpenOffice, so I will not use OpenOffice, that Oracle will stop once to distribute Java for free, so I don't use Java, Novell will block its Unix rights and I will not use Linux or OS X just for this. SCO was dismissed once, and Microsoft will be dismissed if it will attack patents (like FAT patents), a technology workaround will be written in Linux kernel and so on.
                        Also, I do think at the end that the issue is not just about I do like a technology with risks or not. Probably 20 years ago I'll chose Pascal as development language and today I do think that was the best choice to do it, but letting this aside, I don't use Pascal anymore. What if pascal was killed just because Delphi appears with its proprietary VCL and other technologies? I've just matured miself, I took another way in life and this is it, no reason to make an emotional choice.
                        If C# will die for free developments, with Mono, I can use Boo with DotGnu, LLVM/VMKit. Even all will die, at least I've learned some python like technologies that may use me in my future life.
                        Picking assembler as the safest choice 30 years ago, Pascal 20 years ago, C++/Java around 10 years ago, C# today seems to me an evolution. Why other to pick for me how I grow? Because 20 years ago, assemblers guys will say Pascal is too slow, 10 years ago, people will say that Java is too slow, or C++ "virtual" compared with raw C, C# because is not free (or again slow).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Don't waste your breath writing long, logical answers. It comes down to this: you can use Mono/Boo/C#, get the job done and move on to something worthwhile, like going out and enjoying the sun, or you can spend the next two months reinventing the wheel in asm/COBOL/C++/[insert technology here].

                          C++ is worthwhile in the same ways that COBOL is: (a) million lines of legacy code to maintain; (b) a comprehensive guide on bad language design. Neither language will go away (indeed, we just hired a brilliant guy that used to maintain IBM/COBOL mainframes for a living) but language design has moved on those last decades. All new languages run in VMs and feature garbage collectors and there's a damn good reason for that. A few years for a computer science or software engineering degree will make that pretty obvious.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Take a good look at your Linux and/or Windows installation. Most programs are not running in a VM. Now imagine how well that system would run if everything was running inside .NET. What would the memory and CPU usage look like?

                            The fact that most stuff runs nice and fast is that VMs are only used for some front-end stuff. C and C++ are not outdated technologies to be done away with. They are much needed tools (that are being renewed and enhanced through the years) and provide the means to implement systems that don't suck.

                            Btw, software engineering degree with .NET and Java only? Are you joking? All universities where you can get an engineering degree focus more on C and C++ (also Fortran, Lisp...). Only non-engineering schools focus on the .NET and Java stuff. Just because someone attends some IT school doesn't mean he's studying for an engineering degree. The IT schools you have in mind focus on producing expendable developer workforce, not engineers.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                              Take a good look at your Linux and/or Windows installation. Most programs are not running in a VM. Now imagine how well that system would run if everything was running inside .NET. What would the memory and CPU usage look like?
                              Identical, quite likely. The BCL can be shared between applications and 99.9% of them are not CPU-bound anyway.

                              The fact that most stuff runs nice and fast is that VMs are only used for some front-end stuff.
                              [citation needed]

                              C and C++ are not outdated technologies to be done away with. They are much needed tools (that are being renewed and enhanced through the years) and provide the means to implement systems that don't suck.
                              Same as COBOL.

                              Btw, software engineering degree with .NET and Java only? Are you joking? All universities where you can get an engineering degree focus more on C and C++ (also Fortran, Lisp...). Only non-engineering schools focus on the .NET and Java stuff. Just because someone attends some IT school doesn't mean he's studying for an engineering degree. The IT schools you have in mind focus on producing expendable developer workforce, not engineers.
                              At the NTUA (electrical and computer engineering) we studied Pascal, C, C++, Java, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, Lisp and Prolog. VMs: 6/9. No VMs: 3/9.

                              It should be obvious that the trend is for younger languages to use VMs and automatic memory management.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                                Identical, quite likely.
                                [citation needed]

                                The BCL can be shared between applications and 99.9% of them are not CPU-bound anyway.
                                So out of 100 applications only 1 is CPU-bound? You need a reality check. About 50% of the apps I use are CPU-bound.

                                Same as COBOL.
                                They don't teach COBOL, so how's that "the same"?

                                At the NTUA (electrical and computer engineering) we studied Pascal, C, C++, Java, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, Lisp and Prolog. VMs: 6/9. No VMs: 3/9.
                                All of them fine technologies for their own purposes, uses and goals. I don't see C# and .NET stuff on the list. Why was that invented again instead of using one of the above you listed? Oh yeah, MS likes to do their own thing instead of using standardized, already existing stuff. Also, I wonder why they invented C# instead of Python#... Oh, could it be that people want C-like languages? You know, of the type you refer to as "COBOL-like, deprecated and ancient crap" while at the same time praising C# even though it has got a big, freaking "C" in its name and is close to C++?

                                It should be obvious that the trend is for younger languages to use VMs and automatic memory management.
                                Yes, because for non-VM languages we already have C and C++.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X