Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Mono Is Desirable For Linux

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by nadro View Post
    The best choice for a games is C++. Maybe for a small project C# or JAVA are ok, but for more advanced games these langueages are useless. These langs has got too big overhead and this is a waste of memory and CPU (eg worse hit in a cache). It's better do do more advanced physic, AI or sound and other CPU resources give to a graphic driver than waste a lot of resources for a language.
    Big games aren't written in one language. The graphics engine is written in one thing, in-game object scripting is another, and so on. For example, Civilization 4 uses Python for everything other than the graphics engine; Civilization 5 uses Lua; The Sims 3 uses Mono.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Detructor View Post
      Access? Visual Basic? Who the fuck would ever use that, aside from the first time you tried it and saw how bad it is/was.
      Perhaps when MICROSOFT prints promotional materials touting their capabilities? Oh you say they LIED? What a FINE company to deal with!

      And as someone who coded and codes both Java and C#: C# is better. Regardless about which point you are talking.

      As for mono: The only bad thing about that is, that they (the company behind Mono which I'm not able to spell correctly) aren't porting WPF. That stuff is so friggin awesome.
      You just DESTROYED your VERY OWN ARGUMENT! WHY invest in a fractured development environment where the "good stuff" is only available on one platform?

      HOW HOW HOW is C# supposed to be "better regardless of which point" when the point happens to be cross-platform portability?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by directhex View Post
        iso/iec 23270?
        Yes I thought so, but .NET & C# are predominantly used on Windows, so MS can break the standard if it wants to in such a way as to break mono implementation but leave Windows still working. So your wonderful killer cross platform app that is drawing the world onto Linux suddenly works so much better on Windows.

        In the same way, SUN for example, could not have tried to close SunOS even back in the day by redefining C - the language was too widely used and breaking it would have cost Sun too much.

        I don't know that I am explaining myself very well. Just take it as my probably incoherent two cent's worth.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
          But I do fear MS using .NET & C# as a wedge to open legal action against Linux.
          I just don't understand this.

          Why is Mono the magical wedge to fear?

          Why isn't the Linux kernel, over which Microsoft have sued e.g. TomTom over, the wedge?

          Why isn't Freetype, which Apple threatened to sue over, the wedge?

          Why isn't OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice a wedge for the same patent trolls who sued Microsoft over Word's ability to save to XML-based formats (ODF is XML-based, and OOo/LO also saves to Microsoft's XML formats too)?

          Why isn't Java a wedge, given the patents Kodak sued Sun over?

          Why isn't JavaScript a wedge, given the JavaScript specification is (c) Microsoft (amongst others; the C# and .NET specs are also done by Microsoft and many non-Microsoft people)?

          Why isn't Vala a wedge, given how much of C# it copies, and that Microsoft's "will not sue" patent pledge applies only to full implementations of the language and not partial clones?

          Why is Mono something to run in fear of, and none of the above are worth thinking about?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
            Yes I thought so, but .NET & C# are predominantly used on Windows, so MS can break the standard if it wants to in such a way as to break mono implementation but leave Windows still working. So your wonderful killer cross platform app that is drawing the world onto Linux suddenly works so much better on Windows.
            If Microsoft change the spec, then the app - and every app relying on the old version of the spec - breaks.

            In fact, it'd become paradoxically the case that the best way to continue making your app available to users is to bundle Mono for Windows - which would still run your app - than to use Microsoft.NET, which would not.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by directhex View Post
              https://github.com/SupergiantGames/MonoGame

              Google Native Client port of Mono(Game), as used for the browser version of Bastion.
              Which is a fork of Mono(Game). Come back when its merged into Mono(Game).

              Also there are a several features that I want that cannot be implemented because NaCl do not support them.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                ...
                They sold "Active X" and "Silverlight" and ... as "solid professional application development environments,
                ...
                FAIL! (I want to shout too!).

                Active X, COM, DCOM are all the same thing. Direct-Whatever are just a collection of purpose-specific Active X APIs. The model is essentially unchanged since mid 1990's. Windows is still built on Active X, just under different names. .NET is a great big wrapper around Windows/Office/IE/etc Active X core.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by directhex View Post
                  I just don't understand this.

                  Why is Mono the magical wedge to fear?

                  Why isn't the Linux kernel, over which Microsoft have sued e.g. TomTom over, the wedge?
                  ...
                  I don't know exactly, but my spidey sense tells me it is the wedge that MS will use.

                  Nobody said the spidey sense is rational.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
                    I don't know exactly, but my spidey sense tells me it is the wedge that MS will use.

                    Nobody said the spidey sense is rational.
                    The wedge they'll use isn't the one they've sabre-rattled about in the press... it's the one where they've invited key developers to conferences, released millions of lines of source code under FOSS licenses, etc?

                    Ingenious!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                      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.
                      Yes. Because writing and maintaining a whole different set of code for Win32 and OS X is so much more cost-effective.

                      The truth is that by using an abstraction layer Microsoft would save billions. Be it Wine, Qt, Java, .NET, Mono or brainfuck... does not really matter which they choose... Wine would probably be cheapest because most of Microsoft's applications already work to some degree on that platform...

                      Also unlike Java .NET can run C and C++ applications as CIL bytecode, so a rewrite would not be required to move to .NET. They could probably port Wine to .NET and stack office on top of that.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Wow, total pile of crap.
                        Mono is terrible. Not primarily because of legal threats. Because it has a highly destructive side-effect.
                        When a software developer wants to be LAZY, they simply do not implement a non-windoze version. They say instead "we only support gaybuttfu*kingbalmer, if you wanna get with a girl, you can always try wine or mono, otherwise bend over and take it." Now if you happen to be gay and like taking it up the arse, power to you, this solution may satisfy you. For everyone else though, it means that software just doesn't work the way that satisfies you, and software developers are in no way motivated to actually support your preferred paltform.

                        The ideal solution to this problem, is the use of cross-platform development tools. This makes support of all the different platforms... as easy as supporting ONLY ONE.

                        EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I've ever seen in support of MONO has boiled down to either LAZYNESS or IGNORANCE. Mono solves NEITHER.

                        The ONLY thing that solves BOTH is FORCING software developers to actually support more than balmer.


                        Oh, and I argue with list of points made at top of article;
                        - Oracle was attacking Android's Java for copyright issues (no patents, sic!)
                        **** THEY LOST!!!!!

                        - Apple attacked Android too, an open platform

                        No, Apple attacked SAMSUNG over features/characteristics added BY SAMSUNG, in particular, "rectangle with rounded corners" -- does not apply to Android, only Samsung.

                        - Microsoft attacked TomTom for using extFat format in their GPS devices
                        Serves tomtom right for being retarded.
                        Yes, this point actually DOES support "MONO SUCKS"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by directhex View Post
                          The wedge they'll use isn't the one they've sabre-rattled about in the press... it's the one where they've invited key developers to conferences, released millions of lines of source code under FOSS licenses, etc?

                          Ingenious!
                          And then threaten to sue you for all you're worth if you put a SD card slot on your product, because the user just might insert a card with a "patented" MS-DOS filesystem on it.

                          Or they might even sue you with a big pile of supposed patents that they won't reveal to you.

                          Or they might force you into a "strategic partnership" where they bleed all the life out of you.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
                            FAIL! (I want to shout too!).

                            Active X, COM, DCOM are all the same thing. Direct-Whatever are just a collection of purpose-specific Active X APIs. The model is essentially unchanged since mid 1990's. Windows is still built on Active X, just under different names. .NET is a great big wrapper around Windows/Office/IE/etc Active X core.
                            Nope. These thing are not all the same thing. COM is an object sharing model, OLE is a COM application for sharing more specific object. DCOM is a network-transparent proxy for COM. ActiveX is a specification for sharing graphical components over OLE.

                            .NET does not even officially support COM/OLE/ActiveX.... so no.

                            .NET assemblies is intended to REPLACE COM/OLE/ActiveX because those are generally a bloody mess that only Don Box fully understand.

                            Yes there are a lot of windows and office components that still are stuck in COM but all new development are focused on .NET assemblies.

                            Personally I think it was wrong of Microsoft to make WinRT native. They should have reused .NET Micro Framework and make something entirely based on .NET.

                            Of course moving all code to .NET means killing Windows, which becomes a problem for redmond...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by mateli View Post
                              Yes. Because writing and maintaining a whole different set of code for Win32 and OS X is so much more cost-effective.

                              The truth is that by using an abstraction layer Microsoft would save billions. Be it Wine, Qt, Java, .NET, Mono or brainfuck... does not really matter which they choose... Wine would probably be cheapest because most of Microsoft's applications already work to some degree on that platform...

                              Also unlike Java .NET can run C and C++ applications as CIL bytecode, so a rewrite would not be required to move to .NET. They could probably port Wine to .NET and stack office on top of that.
                              yes write wine in C# so linux user will need 64 CPU and 4 gpu to open office on it and ofc finally break the barriers and set the 16 GB minimal memory requirements but ofc running C/C++ code as bytecode will improve it <-- WTF

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by mateli View Post
                                Yes. Because writing and maintaining a whole different set of code for Win32 and OS X is so much more cost-effective.

                                The truth is that by using an abstraction layer Microsoft would save billions. Be it Wine, Qt, Java, .NET, Mono or brainfuck... does not really matter which they choose... Wine would probably be cheapest because most of Microsoft's applications already work to some degree on that platform...

                                Also unlike Java .NET can run C and C++ applications as CIL bytecode, so a rewrite would not be required to move to .NET. They could probably port Wine to .NET and stack office on top of that.
                                <pedant>
                                .NET runs C & C++ code that has been compiled to .NET bytecode.
                                </pedant>

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X