Once again, directhex brings the facts. This is the same thing I see every time he wades into the fray: cold, hard facts are presented, while those arguing against him have not much more than opinion and conjecture to come with.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Microsoft Hosts: GNOME & Mono Festival of Love
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by directhex View PostAmarok takes 10 gig! (rounding up to the nearest 10 gig)
I never said 50 meg of libs, I said 50 meg for the apps, AND the runtime, AND the libs. 50 meg total
I think we already determined that you have difficulty counting, so I'm not sure your "ton" number there carries much weight
I don't think you really understand how packages work. Figures.
Mono on Debian/Ubuntu is split into 201 distinct packages. Only the required pieces are ever installed.
Don't need WCF? It's not installed.
....
Don't need ASP.NET? It's not installed.
Only the exact, specific libraries used by an app are installed. No more, no less. The footprint on disk required to run a Mono "hello world" is only a couple of meg higher than Python, and lower than Perl.
Not to mention that I find it utterly bizarre that the only people who gripe about whether or not Mono is "feature complete" are people who rage against it. No WPF support? Nobody making apps for Linux cares.
are much less moron in this regard and it's ok just to recompile program, but no need to rewrite half of program code doing UI stuff.
Then you'll be pleased to read http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTEwMTg which will eliminate the startup time of Mono apps.
As for waste, nope. Mono almost always uses less RAM than the equivalent Python, and always uses less than the equivalent Java.
It's also almost always faster than Python or Ruby.
Raging against Mono on Linux is raging against availability of games (3 Humble Bundle games, for example: Bastion, Spacechem, Atom Zombie Smasher)
Raging against Mono on Linux is raging against competitive performance for managed apps (i.e. the balance of RAM and CPU and disk used by Mono is highly competitive with any other popular managed language framework used on Linux)
Raging against Mono on Linux is raging against helping people move from Windows to Linux (e.g. people with university courses taught in C# or VB.NET can use Ubuntu instead of Windows)
Complaining your mono crap isn't very welcome in Linux world is like if I would complain that I'm not so welcome in restaurants as Chef due to my very average cooking skills. You see, nobody really needs third-rate meal made by someone who isn't a real Chef at all when they come to restaurants.
But I doubt you care much about that. It's all about the holy war, isn't it?
MS + Mono = Festival of Love. Everything seems to be f...d up when you want some real cross platform interoperabilityLast edited by 0xBADCODE; 09 June 2012, 12:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View PostI can remember that unpacked size of all mono stuff I ditched from Ubuntu when it has been supplied with mono has been around 100Mb. Honestly, I don't need moron photo managers who can't browse photo directly and starting for 20 seconds or so. Same goes about half-bugged and bloated players like banshee. Finally Ubuntu has got it right. Yay!
I think that you prefer count digits in ways which are not making your fetish looking like piece of crap. I don't care. Insert this marketing bullsh.... to place where sun does not shines.
Thanks, Captain. What a bunch of crap. And when you install from CD, there was quite many crap installed by default for Banshee and F-spot. Fortunately it's over so I no longer need to uninstall it.
In fact I don't need mono at all. It's a worthless. There are no any usable programs using it. And WCF clearly implies that not everyone is equal. Should it be success, wouldn't a MS remember that W means Windows so everyone must pay for trademark, etc? Dealing with MS always haves bad outcome for everyone but MS .
That's why I prefer C/C++ GTK and Qt programs . So you can compete with other third-rate stuff if you wish. Fortunately this will not be my problem. And btw I also ditched most of python crap as well. You see, 90% of Ubuntu bugs are lurking in low-quality python glue code. Rapid development always comes at price and code quality is just beyond my wildest imaginations. Their SSO client crashed (bah, python crap). And then bug reporter crashed too (lol, python crap either). Really low quality thing. Better try to beat C and C++
That what really suxx in mono. You can make "apps for Linux". Or "apps for Windows". But there are virtually no cross-platform apps. So all this idiocy with virtual machines makes a very little sense as the result. Most programs should suffer a major UI rewrite during porting. Say, GTK and Qt
are much less moron in this regard and it's ok just to recompile program, but no need to rewrite half of program code doing UI stuff.
Well, I don't really care about mono so far. There are no useful programs using it. Let's it rest in peace. Why some moron needs a "cross platform" runtime which can't even have the cross platform set of widgets? Perfect idiocy. But it's MS, it's okay for them.
Come on, beat C and C++. I don't really care about junk competitions. Beat some real programs, not a script kiddie stuff. Oh, looks like I've been lucky to never see Perl programs. Just some casual scripts intended for automation where it's okay if it's not very optimal if it's one time task and you can afford resources. However I never considered running perl stuff on permanent basis as some kind of program .
Well, as for me I would prefer games from some real pros like Valve, not a "wannabe-gamedevs". No, really, no any serious gamedevs are using .net. Even on windows. Some third-rate things from wannabe-gamedevs do not count. Let's leave third rate stuff for windows users .
Well, you see, Java can at least launch more or less same program on any system. Mono almost can't. There are some awkward ways to work this around but overall it's just absolutely insane that there is no identical set of widgets for all platforms. But it's MS so they don't need true cross platform apps for obvious reasons.
As for me, it would be better if they would live in windows with their wrecked knowledge if they not going to learn something better. You see, it's enough to have one windows. Making yet another windows from something else is futile and stupid (and mono even uses MZ EXE binaries, unlike java, phew!). So if you want to have MS tools, you will be third rate citizen of *nix world anyway. So why to bother? Either learn something better or begone. Else ... hmm, there are already over 20 000 packages in Debian. It's already challenge to find good program. Third rate stuff would add even more headache with search.
Complaining your mono crap isn't very welcome in Linux world is like if I would complain that I'm not so welcome in restaurants as Chef due to my very average cooking skills. You see, nobody really needs third-rate meal made by someone who isn't a real Chef at all when they come to restaurants.
At the end of day I like a programs with quality code, small and fast and with as few deps as possible. So you can trust to such program even mission critical things and it would not fail by exposing 10 own bugs + 20 runtime bugs, etc. However this is clearly not about mono at all.
MS + Mono = Festival of Love. Everything seems to be f...d up when you want some real cross platform interoperability
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostRaw C++ is really sort of a different animal than Qt.
Qt adds a lot of extra functionality, great libraries, features, and documentation on top of C++, which makes it very nice to use.
I think when people talk about how difficult C++ is, they are generally just using the STL and bringing in random libraries to help them out.
That said.. Qt is the defacto C++ toolkit, well.. it and boost, (I'm honestly rather uncertain why anyone would bother with the STL actually, which in and of itself is just another (inferior) toolkit, built in mind you, but not really worth it by comparison) so any statement regarding the language difficulty of C++ needs to include it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostIndeed it is rather different, although C++11 helps a lot. However even still for all it's deficiencies when not using Qt, it's actually workable unlike Java.
That said.. Qt is the defacto C++ toolkit, well.. it and boost, (I'm honestly rather uncertain why anyone would bother with the STL actually, which in and of itself is just another (inferior) toolkit, built in mind you, but not really worth it by comparison) so any statement regarding the language difficulty of C++ needs to include it.
Even if you restrict it to only Linux projects, Qt is in < 50% of c++ projects out there.
It's definitely the best c++ toolkit, but not the defacto one.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=directhex;267230
Plus, 1) de Icaza isn't organizing this, and 2) de Icaza isn't a Microsoft employee, and 3) de Icaza has never been a Microsoft employee. So yet again you come across as a conspiracy theorist loon.
.[/QUOTE]
You are right.
De Icaza is just a Microsoft MVP award winner ( given to outstanding members of Microsoft's technical communities based on contributions made during the previous 12 months to offline and online Microsoft-related technical communities.) and part of their program.
He doenst get paid but rather gets services and benefits according to MS.
As well as being on the board of Microsoft's CodePlex Foundation.
Comment
Comment