Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who's Leading The Development Of Mono

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

  • Who's Leading The Development Of Mono

    Phoronix: Who's Leading The Development Of Mono

    Here's some new statistics considering the development of the controversial Mono open-source ECMA CLI, C# and .NET implementation...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE3NzQ

  • #2
    Implementation status

    Some useful links about implementation status and future roadmaps and features supported and planned features.

    http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
    http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap
    http://go-mono.com/status/
    http://www.mono-project.com/Plans

    Comment


    • #3
      Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
      Last edited by 0xCAFE; 09-06-2012, 09:04 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        in b4 mono trolls

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 0xCAFE View Post
          Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
          because Mono is fucking controversiolest ?)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 0xCAFE View Post
            Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
            all this controversial questioning sounds controversial...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              Some useful links about implementation status and future roadmaps and features supported and planned features.

              http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
              http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap
              http://go-mono.com/status/
              http://www.mono-project.com/Plans
              According to the project site Moonlight is still active even though Miguel says it's abandoned.

              They're also not implementing WPF because Silverlight is better.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 0xCAFE View Post
                Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
                You're wrong about one thing, and I criticized the same thing in another topic: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...236#post284236
                I think that the "betrayal" feeling of a lot of Linux folks was when Novell did a partnership with Microsoft to create software that interroperates with Active Directory and so on for OpenSuse.
                In minds of many, as Miguel was always a fan of the advancements of .Net (and Mono), it appeared to many that Mono would be a Microsoft backed implementation.
                Also, there are sites like "Boycott Novell" whic got a lot of fuss and maybe a lot of fans in Phoronix lines.
                As for me, at least regarding .Net/Mono world, Microsoft was a nice citizen, and it wasn't about another areas (like ExtFAT with TomTom), when Apple didn't. They also had great projects like IronRuby/IronPython, which even may be "look, MS do want to lock us into .Net", some people always thought about old "embrace and extend" think that Microsoft was used to do it in 1990s.
                I think that in long term, Phoronix contributors should separate the idea that Mono is a Microsoft product, it isn't. It isn't anymore offensive than GCJ is an Oracle product. Yes, is true that some pieces are from Microsoft, but without them it will be the world the same. In fact as runtime, Mono is a C product (is written in C, for some years it was using GLib, but right now it removed this dependency), is a Java like product, is a GCC like product (by using a similar representation of optimizations as Gimple from GCC does), it is a primitive get effective Generational Garbage collector, is a LLVM product on Mono for Android and MonoTouch products. Attacking Mono as a technology, will likely disable a part of functionality, but it will likely be rewritten to give something equivalent.
                As for me, Mono brings a decent to work with virtual machine for Gtk/Gnome world which performs a bit slower than GCC, but well enough for most usages. People with little time that contribute in desktop Linux area, should not look for leaks, but for functionality and fill it correctly. In this way I think is invaluable for students that do learn C# in university, and they can contribute back easily into Gnome world. This makes me to think that the closest platform to develop as productive as Mono is, is probably: Python, and for critical parts to use either Cython or C/C++ modules, which some people did (like in Mercurial or in TortoiseHg), but I see no reason why not to write all in a platform like Mono.
                Also Mono packagers maybe should look to improve the startup time in some cases by using AOT compilation for most used modules. This would remove maybe for some the "meme" like: "look how slow Mono is, it takes 20 seconds to start Banshee with this big playlist on my netbook".

                Comment


                • #9
                  For fun I deployed one of my C# MVC3 web applications to Linux/Apache.

                  IT WORKED. IT WORKED WELL!

                  If mono can save me $$ in fees for running Win2k8 Server VMs for fairly small clients, I'll use it!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And who of these contributors are not paid by Xamarin? Personally, I find it more interesting to learn whether Mono is a community project or a corporate project whose source just ends up being released.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X