Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: Ubuntu Developers Discuss Using Mono AOT

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,383

    Default Ubuntu Developers Discuss Using Mono AOT

    Phoronix: Ubuntu Developers Discuss Using Mono AOT

    Ubuntu developers are currently exploring the possibility of using Mono AOT to reduce start-up time, allow for better memory sharing, and for greater performance optimizations...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    481

    Default

    For everyone's sake, just get rid of mono!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,735

    Default




    obligatory because there are certain words that create a mess everytime someone mentions them. some are Mono, Pulseaudio, Systemd, Lennart Poettering, Microsoft, network transparency etc


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    105

    Default

    They can do whatever they want to do with mono in repository, but get rid of it on default installation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,153

    Default Mono is good

    Mono is good. AFAIK its not lagging far behind Microsoft's .NET framework implementation.
    Mono is full open source under MIT, LGPL, GPL.

    C# is a Ecma standard, ECMA-334.

    As I understand it, C# is faster than Java, Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP, etc.
    C# is lot easier and friendlier to code in than C, C++, Objective-C.

    Someone should port the Java Class Library to C#.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,269

    Default

    They could do it to Java too, if only gcj supported any of its GUIs

    As I understand it, C# is faster than Java, Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP, etc.
    Sure it's faster than interpreted languages, but lost to Java last I checked.

    C# is lot easier and friendlier to code in than C, C++, Objective-C.
    Hell no. But opinion question anyway.

    Someone should port the Java Class Library to C#.
    Double ewww.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Sure it's faster than interpreted languages, but lost to Java last I checked.
    AFAIK Ximians project to port Android from Java to Mono shows the Mono port to be significiantly faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Hell no. But opinion question anyway.
    No more buffer overflows, memory pointers, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Double ewww.
    For people who like C# but oppose .NET, this would be .NET-free C#.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Glad they're talking about faster startup times for Mono apps instead of faster startup times of Ubuntu Desktop by somehow using Mono.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Mono is good. AFAIK its not lagging far behind Microsoft's .NET framework implementation.
    Mono is full open source under MIT, LGPL, GPL.

    C# is a Ecma standard, ECMA-334.

    As I understand it, C# is faster than Java, Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP, etc.
    C# is lot easier and friendlier to code in than C, C++, Objective-C.

    Someone should port the Java Class Library to C#.
    I'm sorry, Mono will always lag behind .Net. There will always be bugs and unimplemented features unless you're compairing to older versions of .Net, and there's still the problem of the windows-only extensions (forms for example). Mono have to develop in the same direction as Microsoft .Net which probably means even more "easy-to-use" (for Windows programmers) Microsoft-only features. In the long term the core of Mono/.Net will only become as good as Microsoft allows it to be. I'm sure there's a neat programming language in there, but why go for a programming environment that is more or less controlled by Microsoft, which are 100% sure to use it to promote Windows?

    In my experience with getting .Net apps running in Wine with the help of Mono I'd say that almost 100% of the .Net2.0 apps works, about 75% of the .Net3.0/.Net3.5 apps can be made to work and less then 50% of the .Net4.0 apps works. It's far easier to get easier to get some random C/C++ binary working in Wine then .Net4.0 apps. Java/Perl/Python apps are almost trivially easy to get in some working order since you'll have the source code available.
    Last edited by a7v-user; 05-12-2012 at 12:03 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    707

    Default

    You dont have the source for a java program any more then you do for a .net porgram.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    AFAIK Ximians project to port Android from Java to Mono shows the Mono port to be significiantly faster.
    Yes, it's faster than Dalvik. Dalvik != Java, Dalvik also != OpenJDK (hotspot).

    No more buffer overflows, memory pointers, etc.
    Instead it has its own problems, like untraceable memory leaks, horrible, verbose syntax, being a bytecode language without any of the benefits (no way to addess objects by their name, ie a string. No the reflection/introspection/etc extensions don't work for this.), slow startup (same as Java), completely illogical parts like "using", no macro processor at all, etc etc etc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •