MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

[onicsis]

.net and C# was developed for bussiness Logic in CRM or something like that.
From what I know many layers of Oracle software stack(like Salesforce) are developed on Java platform.

[directhex]

.net and C# was developed for bussiness Logic in CRM or something like that.
From what I know many layers of Oracle software stack(like Salesforce) are developed on Java platform.

.NET and C# originated as an attempt to provide a similar framework to Java, without the prospect of being sued by Sun for attempting to make changes (as happened with Microsoft Java). So .NET was a proper public-spec standard from day 1, the way Java never was. It's evolved somewhat over the last dozen years, though.

[jayrulez]

I am not sure this perspective is very helpful. Mono certainly competes with Qt and C++ for application development on the desktop. Moreover, Qt Jambi gives and alternative to Swing on java. I don't know the state of Jambi today, so others will have to comment on it's maturity. I have tested Qt on Android though, and that seems to work fine (only tested with C++). I believe Qt and C++ covers just about any usage of C# (as long as you have programmers that can handle C++ well). It is however true that C# has yet to prove itself in HPC, and with Microsoft pulling the plug from it's HPC effort, that time may never come. So I guess you could say that Qt and C++ is designed to go everywhere, while .net/C# is more limited.

There's no point in arguing over this. C++ has its strong and weak areas, same with C# and any other languages you might find out there. Use the best tool for the job. There's no need for religious wars over programming languages or any other piece of technology.

[brosis]

Go RIGHT ahead. Given how largely unmoderated these forums are, I'm sure it'll have a huge effect.

So am I.

Well, go work a loom then. Get off the keyboard.

If all coders would be like you, I'd sure would. Happily, its not the case.
Back then it was VB, later J#, now C#, not everyone is stupid enough to descent into this microsoft-only crap.

You have no fucking clue what are "microsoft technologies" because if you did, you'd take a sledgehammer to your computer.

You use Microsoft technology every single day, but you're too much of a hypocrite to acknowledge it.

Name me any single one.
I rely on Intel, GNU and BSD, nothing else.

"join Microsoft"?

I've never worked for, applied to work for, or been paid by Microsoft. In the interest of full disclosure, I got a free mouse at an HPC conference, a couple of cocktails at a different HPC conference, and a small book in first year of University.

Not in this sense, they hire mostly in India and China. But when it comes to marketing, you might get an offer, you market it really "well" in phoronix.

.net and C# was developed for bussiness Logic in CRM or something like that.
From what I know many layers of Oracle software stack(like Salesforce) are developed on Java platform.

Thats because when microsoft failed to embrace-extend-extinguish Java by pushing own VM and J#, it got sued by Sun and rewrote own version of Java, named ".net", which it aggressively tries to push into every non-MS ecosystem right now. But of course, incomplete version, so it breaks and they offer you either windows, or paid version; and frame your platform as faulty. And they will also push hard to implement it into core components so they can charge license fees. Linux, Apple, Android, you name it. The best solution is to completely stop supporting microsoft. Completely.

[Luke_Wolf]

.NET and C# originated as an attempt to provide a similar framework to Java, without the prospect of being sued by Sun for attempting to make changes (as happened with Microsoft Java). So .NET was a proper public-spec standard from day 1, the way Java never was. It's evolved somewhat over the last dozen years, though.

On top of which Java is a language designed by megalomaniacal control freaks which has resulted in it being an absolutely shitty language to have to write in while C# is actually nice to it's programmers because it lacks the stupid control freak atttitude which means you get nice things, like operator overloading.

Thats because when microsoft failed to embrace-extend-extinguish Java by pushing own VM and J#, it got sued by Sun and rewrote own version of Java, named ".net", which it aggressively tries to push into every non-MS ecosystem right now. But of course, incomplete version, so it breaks and they offer you either windows, or paid version; and frame your platform as faulty. And they will also push hard to implement it into core components so they can charge license fees. Linux, Apple, Android, you name it. The best solution is to completely stop supporting microsoft. Completely.

Oh because Sun Microsystems bribing the major universities so that Java developers would flood the market with it's utterly shitty language driving it's usage was so much better. Honestly Microsoft has done a hell of a lot better job at what Java is supposed to be trying to be than Java is. Also Microsoft isn't aggressively pursuing other non-MS platforms with .NET (they haven't even ported their own .NET framework to a non-MS platform, all they did was the initial agreements which resulted in Novell creating mono) even Xamarin isn't honestly doing so (where's the BBX and other OS ports?), Digia is the only one aggressively pursuing supporting everything. Also Microsoft is making mono more complete by opening up parts of it's own .NET framework under the Apache license which mono is then integrating.

[directhex]

Back then it was VB, later J#, now C#, not everyone is stupid enough to descent into this microsoft-only crap.

I thought what offended you about Mono is that it's *not* Microsoft-only, i.e. it's on non-Microsoft platforms?

Name me any single one.
I rely on Intel, GNU and BSD, nothing else.

Javascript. TCP/IP. DNS. TLS. PPP. SSL. USB.

Not in this sense, they hire mostly in India and China. But when it comes to marketing, you might get an offer, you market it really "well" in phoronix.

What, by calling morons morons? That's frowned upon in most PR manuals.

Thats because when microsoft failed to embrace-extend-extinguish Java by pushing own VM and J#, it got sued by Sun and rewrote own version of Java, named ".net", which it aggressively tries to push into every non-MS ecosystem right now. But of course, incomplete version, so it breaks and they offer you either windows, or paid version; and frame your platform as faulty. And they will also push hard to implement it into core components so they can charge license fees. Linux, Apple, Android, you name it. The best solution is to completely stop supporting microsoft. Completely.

Nobody, not a single person ever, has ended up in the scenario you describe, where they use Microsoft.NET because they started off with a cross-platform Mono solution but found that only Microsoft could offer them esoteric components that they needed. Nobody. It's an imaginary scenario, dreampt up by fanatical anti-Mono campaigners, disseminated by anti-Mono campaigners, and pushed by anti-Mono campaigners.

Microsoft.NET is not "full version Mono" - Microsoft.NET is "a crippled Mono that only runs on Windows". You really don't understand the psyche of FOSS developers if you think otherwise.

[directhex]

(they haven't even ported their own .NET framework to a non-MS platform,

They shipped a reference implementaiton of .NET a long time ago, called Rotor, for BSD-based OSes. It was not under a Free license so could not be used usefully by anyone.

all they did was the initial agreements which resulted in Novell creating mono)

Mono predates the Novell agreements by several years. You're thinking of Moonlight, perhaps? Mono was possible because the .NET specification is a public free download.

[Luke_Wolf]

They shipped a reference implementaiton of .NET a long time ago, called Rotor, for BSD-based OSes. It was not under a Free license so could not be used usefully by anyone.

okay didn't know about that one

Mono predates the Novell agreements by several years. You're thinking of Moonlight, perhaps? Mono was possible because the .NET specification is a public free download.

well I hadn't dug that deep into the whole agreement or history of mono, but I had thought the creation of mono was a result of the agreement, but I'll accede to you on this since this is something I haven't really done that much research on.

[Del_]

There's no point in arguing over this. C++ has its strong and weak areas, same with C# and any other languages you might find out there. Use the best tool for the job. There's no need for religious wars over programming languages or any other piece of technology.

This has nothing to do with religion, please do not bring the discussion down to that mud-throwing level. For me it is pragmatic, my life is too short to risk it on a framework designed to lock customers into Windows. I have no doubt mono developers see it differently, and I respect that. Steve Ballmer has been very vocal on this point. Microsoft sees any line of code written for another platform as a loss. As such it is very healthy to keep skepticism of the new Microsoft, which still has it's old management. Do you think an old dog learns new tricks?

On top of which Java is a language designed by megalomaniacal control freaks which has resulted in it being an absolutely shitty language to have to write in while C# is actually nice to it's programmers because it lacks the stupid control freak atttitude which means you get nice things, like operator overloading.

You should probably inform the idiots at Google about your discovery. Why on earth did they choose Java for Android? Keep in mind that Microsoft has put its full financial muscles behind pushing .Net on the world. Microsoft saw attracting developers as absolutely critical for the success of their ecosystem. The really astonishing part is that regardless of this technologies like Qt surfaced from underdogs to level the playing ground.

(they haven't even ported their own .NET framework to a non-MS platform, all they did was the initial agreements which resulted in Novell creating mono)

That is not true. They ported Silverlight to Mac, and then due to existence of Moonlight marketed it as cross-platform. I have yet to find a web-site where moonlight works. This part of the history makes me furious (not furious with any moonlight developers mind you), as you see, I use GNU/Linux exclusively, and it shut me and my family out of a number of relevant web-services. You have dual-boot maybe since you are so casual on the subject?

[ciplogic]

This has nothing to do with religion, please do not bring the discussion down to that mud-throwing level. For me it is pragmatic, my life is too short to risk it on a framework designed to lock customers into Windows. I have no doubt mono developers see it differently, and I respect that. Steve Ballmer has been very vocal on this point. Microsoft sees any line of code written for another platform as a loss. As such it is very healthy to keep skepticism of the new Microsoft, which still has it's old management. Do you think an old dog learns new tricks?(...)
That is not true. They ported Silverlight to Mac, and then due to existence of Moonlight marketed it as cross-platform. I have yet to find a web-site where moonlight works. This part of the history makes me furious (not furious with any moonlight developers mind you), as you see, I use GNU/Linux exclusively, and it shut me and my family out of a number of relevant web-services. You have dual-boot maybe since you are so casual on the subject?

So Mono does not run (well) on Windows, so as long as Mono exists, seems that if Mono exists, the platforms that it support they are good as targets. You can write COM+ code (like WinRT code) that is Windows only and is C++, and you can write very portable C# code (like Pinta project). Also, Microsoft makes sure that Linux interoperates well with Windows HyperV virtualization.

As for the sites that work with the latest Ubuntu and Moonlight: look for a MVC3 Pluralsight tutorials: they work flawlessly on Moonlight! And you can learn parts that Qt does not support: customizable http views with MVC3/Razor, DB persistence with Entity which the last Mono does support! Try it: http://pluralsight.com/training/Cour...net-mvc3-intro