Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Mono Is Desirable For Linux

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by devius View Post
    Is this article for real or was Phoronix hacked by an advertising company?
    It's not the most coherently argued text I've seen on the topic, certainly.

    Comment


    • #17
      Nonsensical article that does nothing to describe why Mono is Desirable for Linux!!

      Mono suppose to be an implementation of .NET stuff.
      It does not work very well. And Mono has a lot of differences in functionalities provided from windows .NET.

      Important fact about .NET, it suppose to be language independent. So you can perfectly fine write applications in C++ using FCL functions. .NET projects get compiled to msil code anyway.

      There are all these Mono projects such as pinta (port of Paint.NET) which show how much the point of .NET is missed. If you have to change something to port your project on code of the program itself, code that has to do with distribution on a system is a separate case, it is a fail.

      Comment


      • #18
        This just in, article full of marketing fluff about flammable topic guarantees page views + long forum thread

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by directhex View Post
          Minecraft being a clone of C#-based Infiniminer, of course, if you want to pursue the "clones are evil" line.

          And if you look at the prevalence of games using XNA versus LWJGL (which are beginning to see MonoGame ports as that project matures), or the utter domination of Mono-based Unity3D in the indie game space (with Unity 4.0 heralding a world of Linux ports), then that might provide a few hints as to the validity of Sidicas' argument.
          Seriously? Are you comparing XNA with LWJGL? The TAO framework which I guess MonoGame are based on are comparable to LWJGL.

          XNA are a high level scene graph engine, not a low level API.

          It would be fully possible to implement MonoGame on top of LWJGL. Thats the relationship MonoGame and LWJGL could have with each other.

          AgentFX, Ardor3D or jMonkey are things you can compare with MonoGame.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by plonoma View Post
            Nonsensical article that does nothing to describe why Mono is Desirable for Linux!!

            Mono suppose to be an implementation of .NET stuff.
            It does not work very well. And Mono has a lot of differences in functionalities provided from windows .NET.

            Important fact about .NET, it suppose to be language independent. So you can perfectly fine write applications in C++ using FCL functions. .NET projects get compiled to msil code anyway.

            There are all these Mono projects such as pinta (port of Paint.NET) which show how much the point of .NET is missed. If you have to change something to port your project on code of the program itself, code that has to do with distribution on a system is a separate case, it is a fail.
            Unfortunately there are not open source compiler for C++ to CIL. Nor are there any Java compier. There are a closed source C++ compiler that are not publicly available. Also there are a JVM for .NET.

            Comment


            • #21
              Exactly, Mono is far from complete or usable for a lot of use cases!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mateli View Post
                Unfortunately there are not open source compiler for C++ to CIL. Nor are there any Java compier. There are a closed source C++ compiler that are not publicly available. Also there are a JVM for .NET.
                IKVM.NET is a Free Software compiler which can compile Java bytecode into .NET bytecode, and execute Java bytecode directly using the system's .NET runtime (whether Microsoft.NET or Mono). It's based on OpenJDK's source.

                Code:
                directhex@dream:/tmp$ ikvm hello
                Hello World!
                directhex@dream:/tmp$ java hello
                Hello World!
                directhex@dream:/tmp$ ikvmc -target:exe hello.class 
                Note IKVMC0001: found main method in class "hello"
                Note IKVMC0002: output file is "hello.exe"
                directhex@dream:/tmp$ mono hello.exe 
                Hello World!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by russofris View Post
                  I believe that the majority of the resistance to C# adoption has little to do with the language, and much to do with MS. I like C# as much as I like Java. It makes writing middleware logic a breeze to the point where I can write and navigate code as I think. I feel that java is more desirable for non-gui applications and .Net is more desirable for GUI applications. I would love to see the stability of the mono runtime improve a bit, as I have had a couple bad experiences in the enterprise.

                  The entire patent argument may be moot, but is part of a larger fear. The fear is that somehow MS will find a way to screw us. They have done so in the past, they will do so in the future. I cannot help but feel a hefty amount of paranoia every time I see C# running on linux. Its uncomfortable and I don't like it.

                  I hope the author is right. I hope mono does great things for the linux desktop. I hope MS doesn't pull another SCO or some new trick.

                  F
                  In my case the resistance to C# are quite simple.
                  1. There are much more libraries and solutions to use when making a Java application. The Java framework by itself have a lot more stuff than .NET, throw in Java EE, Apache and the many other libs... C# does not come close to that.

                  2. Applets. C# cant be used in a browser. Moonlight was promising, but a dead project ain't gonna solve any problems.

                  MonoGames is promising, but unless it is integrated into Moonlight its not that interesting to us.

                  Rich Clients is the future. That means Applets (like Moonlight) and application servers (Like JBoss).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by plonoma View Post
                    Exactly, Mono is far from complete or usable for a lot of use cases!
                    It's also perfectly complete and usable for a lot of use cases.

                    The ones who complain loudest about missing Windows-centric assemblies are the ones who insist that they're the most pure of Linux-only users (i.e. it's a bullshit excuse)

                    You should see how excited indie developers are about MonoGame opening up a world of new platforms for their XNA games. They don't sit & moan about WPF missing, they get on with things and bring more games to Linux.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mateli View Post
                      MonoGames is promising, but unless it is integrated into Moonlight its not that interesting to us.
                      https://github.com/SupergiantGames/MonoGame

                      Google Native Client port of Mono(Game), as used for the browser version of Bastion.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If C# is SO GREAT

                        WHERE are the Microsoft applications written in it?

                        WHY haven't they ported Word or Excel or IE or any other of their flagship programs?

                        Microsoft is CONSTANTLY pushing out patches to fix security issues in 20-year old C++ code.

                        You would THINK they would EAT THEIR OWN DOG FOOD and move to a more secure platform.

                        They fact that the HAVE NOT, is why you should RUN AWAY from the latest Microsoft programming "fad"

                        They sold "Active X" and "Silverlight" and "Visual Basic" as "solid professional application development environments, worthy of your development efforts" and then turned around and DEPRECATED THEM. They will DO THE SAME with C# and LEAVE YOU HIGH AND DRY.

                        If Microsoft doesn't trust C# with their PROFITABLE PRODUCTS then why should you? THEY know that C# is an another "fad"
                        Last edited by frantaylor; 09-14-2012, 12:09 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                          They will DO THE SAME with C# and LEAVE YOU HIGH AND DRY.
                          If only there was a way for developers heavily invested in C# to continue to use their code bases, should your doomsday scenario happen.

                          Say, some kind of independent non-Microsoft implementation.

                          Wonder where something like that might be found.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                            WHERE are the Microsoft applications written in it?

                            WHY haven't they ported Word or Excel or IE or any other of their flagship programs?
                            Because it would take fucking years, hundreds of developers, and hundreds of millions of dollars to rewrite millions of lines of code for no immediate end-user marketable gains.

                            Welcome to real life, buddy. Only hobbyists rewrite their entire desktop stack every few years just to appease non-users.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by directhex View Post
                              If only there was a way for developers heavily invested in C# to continue to use their code bases, should your doomsday scenario happen.

                              Say, some kind of independent non-Microsoft implementation.

                              Wonder where something like that might be found.
                              With proper long-term support? NOWHERE! You HONESTLY THINK that Miguel's fly-by-night operation is still going to be supporting their code 20 years from now?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                                With proper long-term support? NOWHERE! You HONESTLY THINK that Miguel's fly-by-night operation is still going to be supporting their code 20 years from now?
                                Weren't you screaming in ALL CAPS just a couple of lines higher, saying 20 year old code is worthless?

                                See, this is what I mean. Your arguments are incoherent because you don't have a coherent goal beyond "CRITICIZE MICRO$HAFT!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X