Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miguel de Icaza Calls For More Mono, C# Games

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

  • #16
    Miguel! We deserve better! We deserve better than having your patent infested Microsoft code smuggled into every platform.
    Get off with that stuff!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by benjamin545 View Post
      where it lacks is desktop api's. mostly it has no native java api's for 3d, gpgpu or video. you can use some opengl bindings or some media file libraries bondings but there is no java 3d api's or java video api's.
      There is a 3D API, it's actually called Java 3D. You wouldn't want to write a game in it though. LWJGL seems to be a much better choice. It's used for Minecraft, which obviously doesn't have the best graphics but that was intentional.

      Comment


      • #18
        Miguel likes Mono
        In other shocking news today, water is wet, and RMS calls for more GPL apps.

        Comment


        • #19
          My dad asked me about Mono in an email yesterday, here's what I replied with.

          ---

          Mono's intention was never to help POSIX-compliant OS users or developers of POSIX-compliant operating systems.

          Its goals were to:

          Get POSIX developers to learn Microsoft .NET and start making Windows programs.

          Get POSIX operating systems to depend on .NET so Microsoft could sue them later.

          Novell was the only one that actually got a solid patent license, and it never covered OpenSUSE or users of OpenSUSE. The Microsoft Community Promise was a load of crap. The "Promise" doesn't prevent them from seeding patents to troll companies they run, like Intellectual Ventures. The Promise also doesn't cover Windows Forms, ASP.NET, or GDI at all. There's a provision that looks innocent enough but undermines the entire Promise by itself. That provision says that the implementation has to fully comply with the ECMA standards for the CLR and for C# or VB.NET to get covered under the Promise.

          This can be taken to mean that a user or distributor of any .NET alternative that is not 100% faithful to the "standard" due to bugs or implementation gaps, or a user of an alternative that provides the ASP.NET, Windows Forms, and GDI compatibility layers gets the Promise nullified then and there. The rest (if there is anyone left after that) get to wait for Microsoft to seed patents to Intellectual Ventures and will get sued as well.

          As for Moonlight. Silverlight is (thankfully) more or less nowhere to be found. even Microsoft's bribe money didn't carry it very far. The vast majority of Silverlight code on the internet is malicious software for Windows PCs, since Microsoft installed it through Windows Update without asking the user if it was OK, and took the liberty of tossing in plug-ins for Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari as well.

          If Silverlight had caught on, Moonlight (development of which is also more or less dead now) would not have helped a single user. It was never compatible with the current release of Silverlight, so it usually wouldn't run the same applets that the current release of Silverlight did. (It never supported Silverlight DRM, so Netflix would never have worked)

          Silverlight applets required patent-encumbered media codecs. The first time you ran an applet in Moonlight that needed them, it would take you to a Microsoft site where you had to sign a Microsoft EULA agreement on binary executables to be ran inside Moonlight. The patent license on the codecs only extended to Moonlight when it was running in a web browser, so if you made standalone desktop applications with Moonlight and used those codecs, you lost your patent license to the codecs.

          The patent license for Moonlight itself doesn't cover any distributors but Novell, and it doesn't cover you unless you got it in binary form, from Novell. The fact that the actual code to a lot of Mono and Moonlight was under the MIT X11 license or the LGPL doesn't help anyone when it comes to patents. The X11 license doesn't force them to give you a patent license. Even though the LGPL does, it can only cover the few components which are licensed under the LGPL. Since Novell, Xamarin, and Attachmate are the promoters of the software and have no .NET/Silverlight patents to license, and Microsoft has been careful not to distribute it, you don't even get patent licenses for the LGPL licensed components.

          Distributions that promote Mono are asking for legal trouble. It was never going to be competition for Microsoft, it was (as was Novell, as is Attachmate, and SUSE) controlled opposition. It's for the best that the dilapidated state of the software itself prompted the few remaining non-SUSE distributions to start getting rid of it, starting with Ubuntu.

          Comment


          • #20
            Reply

            No respect from and for this guy Miguel...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Alliancemd View Post
              No respect from and for this guy Miguel...
              He doesn't deserve any respect. I wonder if the Free Software Foundation could take his award for promoting free software away now that he's dropped all pretenses of promoting free software and is a Microsoft MVP that promotes their products.

              Comment


              • #22

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by eagleoneraptor View Post
                  What about Vala for games?
                  I believe there are bindings for SDL and OpenGL so it's certainly doable, also although Vala's syntax is modeled after C# it compiles to first to C and then native code which means it performs better. There's also garbage collecting through ref counting iirc.

                  Other alternatives would be Google's Go which is fully garbage collected but compiles to native code and has strong language support for concurrency. There's SDL, OpenGL, GLFW bindings for it last time I checked but given that it's relatively new and still in development I wouldn't suggest starting a serious project in it just yet.

                  Originally posted by TechMage89 View Post
                  For that matter, what happened to using C++ in a sane OO way, which makes manual memory management pretty painless in most cases?
                  True, if we don't count flash games then C++ is most likely still the number one language in which games are written and it's not as if RAII is a unknown concept in C++ game programming.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    So the SimS 3 is written in mono? Now that explains the abysmal performance for the medium-to-low graphical quality!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Reply

                      Originally posted by r1348 View Post
                      So the SimS 3 is written in mono? Now that explains the abysmal performance for the medium-to-low graphical quality!
                      I am sure the game is written in C/C++ and some little parts in C#. He just has to promote the product he makes money on...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        God damn is there a whole mess of incredibly thick stupid in this thread.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                          God damn is there a whole mess of incredibly thick stupid in this thread.
                          Yes but before you arrived it was quite okay

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                            I believe there are bindings for SDL and OpenGL so it's certainly doable, also although Vala's syntax is modeled after C# it compiles to first to C and then native code which means it performs better. There's also garbage collecting through ref counting iirc.

                            Other alternatives would be Google's Go which is fully garbage collected but compiles to native code and has strong language support for concurrency.
                            C# does support compiling to native code as well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                              C# does support compiling to native code as well.
                              Yes but that kind of defeats the purpose/strength of the language and you are still dependant on the CLR VM for it to run.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                                Yes but that kind of defeats the purpose/strength of the language and you are still dependant on the CLR VM for it to run.
                                Not really - it's common to release assemblies that are in MSIL, and then they get compiled to native when they are installed on the local machine.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X