Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mono Developers Go Bye-Bye From Attachmate

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by FunkyRider View Post
    I won't be empathizing you when you get your ass sued to a pile of mishmash by Microsoft when you created your entire business based on Mono. Mono is evil, just get over it. No matter how hard you try, it is still based on a corporation that tries to kill you all the time.

    Lay off all Mono devs, lol good! I like it! Now you mono devs can kiss your ass good bye for 'doing the wrong thing'.
    .NET is an ECMA standard, stop letting your irrational paranoia control your thoughts. Only mono stuff relating to windows compatibility is in any remote danger of patent issues, and those parts aren't needed for developing linux applications.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
      Who needs Mono to create apps anyway? Are they lazy to learn other languages or simply incompetent to use alternatives?

      If you can't code in Java then you can't code. If you are lazy then I don't want to run your software as I hate fat software. And who doesn't?
      Troll much?

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Detructor View Post
        Qt -> KDE, that's not really "multi-platform".
        What on Earth are you talking about?

        Qt is cross-platform, and runs on everything.
        QtCreator is cross platform, and should run wherever Qt runs.
        You can use Qt Creator without using KDE classes.
        You can also use Qt Creator without using Qt classes.

        You're complaining about Qt not being multi-platform and you use Visual Studio

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
          Only mono stuff relating to windows compatibility is in any remote danger of patent issues, and those parts aren't needed for developing linux applications.
          C# is not needed for developing linux applications either.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Detructor View Post
            F#, yeh I wanted to try that for some time. but are ocaml and F# really that compatible?
            F# is a cleaner, more modern version of Ocaml. It's backwards compatible to a point.

            These are multiparadigm languages so you can program in the style that most suits you. Gradually you'll start finding the functional style more natural (simpler, safer) to use and soon after you'll never see programming the same way again.

            C++ is a good language to have in your toolkit, but a functional language will make you a better programmer than C++ ever will. Besides, the more diverse your skills are, the higher the chances of getting the job when you reach for a non-grunt level position.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              C# is not needed for developing linux applications either.
              Neither is C++, Python, Java, Ruby, Perl, PHP or Haskel. Yet there you are.

              Diversity is the destiny of Free software.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
                .NET is an ECMA standard, stop letting your irrational paranoia control your thoughts. Only mono stuff relating to windows compatibility is in any remote danger of patent issues, and those parts aren't needed for developing linux applications.
                The following namespaces are open:

                System
                System.Collections
                System.Diagnostics
                System.Globalization
                System.IO
                System.Net
                System.Reflection
                System.Runtime
                System.Security
                System.Text
                System.Threading
                System.Xml

                The following namespaces are proprietary:

                System.CodeDom
                System.ComponentModel
                System.Configuration
                System.Data
                System.Deployment
                System.DirectoryServices
                System.Drawing
                Ssytem.EnterpriseServices
                System.Linq
                System.Linq.Expressions
                System.Management
                System.Media
                System.Messaging
                System.Web
                System.Windows.Forms

                Comment


                • #58
                  Which doesn't mean you cannot re-implement them and use them in a Free application. Ffmpeg is under pretty much the same situation (arguably worse, since there's no patent promise) but that doesn't stop Free software from relying on it.

                  If you really believe that, then are you willing to delete anything related to mp3, mpeg1/2/3, h264, flash and skype from your computer? Didn't think so.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    For extra commentary, I would like to see a legal implementation of the open namespaces. Any attempt by Microsoft to enforce patents on them would fail miserably because of their legally-binding community promise. This open framework would also pose no threat to them because Windows apps couldn't be ported. The aim of the project wouldn't be to have compatibility with .NET, it would be to use the CLR as the foundation of a viable platform. Focusing only on the open namespaces would greatly reduce the amount of work and maintenance required. Third party projects could fill in the gaps with data access and so on.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
                      The following namespaces are proprietary:
                      ...
                      System.Linq
                      System.Linq.Expressions
                      Just an FYI, but at least those 2 assemblies/namespaces are covered by patent grants:

                      http://dlr.codeplex.com

                      Check out the license file (Apache 2.0 for those too lazy to investigate for themselves).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X