Mono Developers Go Bye-Bye From Attachmate

[locovaca]

No, I said this was relatively simple.
Yet, although it is easy to describe in ".NET terms", doing the actual work is way more time consuming and the end result will usually not be as pixel perfect, since you end up doing a lot of manual adjustments.

No, you don't do manual adjustments. Everything gets Docked to fill the entire space, all tables have the same margins.

I could have the basic layout done in 5 minutes.

[Znurre]

No, you don't do manual adjustments. Everything gets Docked to fill the entire space, all tables have the same margins.

I could have the basic layout done in 5 minutes.

If you ever feel like doing that, I'd be more than happy to see the result.
Especially scaled to different sizes, and see how everything behaves

[locovaca]

Try testing the effect of different DPI system settings on WinForms. The result is not pretty.

Much like HTML, if you use absolute coordinates, it does look like a mess. Which is why you shouldn't use absolute coordinates. Does it stop the casual person writing some calculator app for CS class? No.

It's also why WinForms is being deprecated and Microsoft is (trying to) replacing it with WPF, to break the bad habit of stick a control on a form at a specific x and y coordinate.

[RealNC]

This is a Linux site, if you haven't noticed .Net and Winforms and WPF might be excellent choices for good-looking apps on Windows and other MS-controlled systems. But we don't care. We want to have stuff look good on Linux. So, if Qt can do that (it looks good on both KDE as well as Gnome and XFCE; the fact that it also looks good on Windows and the Mac is just an added bonus.), hey we use that. Why on earth would we use Mono?

Oh, and we totally forgot about Qt's QML here. That one alone seals the deal for many devs.

[locovaca]

This is a Linux site, if you haven't noticed .Net and Winforms and WPF might be excellent choices for good-looking apps on Windows and other MS-controlled systems. But we don't care. We want to have stuff look good on Linux. So, if Qt can do that (it looks good on both KDE as well as Gnome and XFCE; the fact that it also looks good on Windows and the Mac is just an added bonus.), hey we use that. Why on earth would we use Mono?

You don't have to use Mono. Nor do I expect anyone on here to extol the virtues of WinForms. Just because I use it at work doesn't mean I'm an evangelist; I'm simply pointing out that these particular complaints about it are unfounded. There's plenty to hate about it that's legit.

Why would you use Mono? If you don't want to, don't. Nobody is forcing you. That's fine that you don't like C#, just don't shit on it because Microsoft does. C# as a language works fine and does several things well that similar languages do not do well. C# at its core is a language free for everyone to use.

[kraftman]

Mono is Free Software; it is released under FSF-approved licenses (MIT, LGPL); yet you support its demise. Ergo, you do not support Free Software.

I thought I explained what I meant. BSD is also free software, but it doesn't make it any better. I support Free Software, because I support GPL and Free Software friendly projects. Mono wasn't Free Software friendly project even if it was released under FSF-approved licenses. I hope it's easy to understand.

@Apopas: my argument is clear: you cannot claim to support Free Software but wish for the demise of Free Software projects. This is hypocritical at best.

It's logical to demise anti-Linux and anti-FLOSS projects which are licensed under some FSF license.

The essense of the GPL is this. It explicitly promotes competition by allowing everyone interested to copy, modify and redistribute the code.

Yes, but it doesn't support bad competition - bsd and proprietary.

You should at least read and understand the ideology you claim to support, lest you make a fool of yourself.

I consider it's not me who made a fool of himself here.

Did you just say that Qt is a language?

Ahahhhahaaaa, thanks, you just made my day!

I was talking about general. Qt is toolkit of course, didn't I said it's a toolkit before?

[vgplayer]

I was busy porting software into Qt when one of our vendors decided to create an API in .NET and claim their protocols are now properitary so I didn't have a choice but to move to .NET.

Because of Mono and Qyoto I was able to use my GUI from Qt and support multiple platforms. I can still use Qt Designer to design the UI and export it to a cs file with uics. The firing of some of the Mono developers may now affect if Mono will be an approved development tool for me and it will force me back to Windows and VS.

[bwat47]

Thinking mono is some kind of secret threat to free software is like the people saying obama is a sleeper muslim terrorist.

Start using some fucking common sense. Mono is based on an open standard and is free software, stop making all these ridiculous claims that its evil.

[Detructor]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Qt is cross-platform, and runs on everything.
QtCreator is cross platform, and should run wherever Qt runs.
You can use Qt Creator without using KDE classes.
You can also use Qt Creator without using Qt classes.

You're complaining about Qt not being multi-platform and you use Visual Studio

to keep it short: qt libaries. Last time I checked I had to install one package for mono, but dozens of packages for QT/KDE, but based on what you just wrote, it seems that this problem is solved. Thanks.

@Jonno as already written by pingfunkybeat my information on that topic is "outdated". sorry 'bout that.

@BlackStar thanks for information about F#.

@Znurre

Separate header and source files

uhm, they are called "interfaces" in C#/Java. (srsly, that's one thing I hate about C++, why do I've to write down all function headers into a different file? that's like writing interfaces for every class in C#/Java. May someone be so kind to explain to me the advantage you get from that?)

@kraftman yeh, I've been already told that those KDE/QT things have improved alot...a lot less dependencies to install and stuff.

oh and for the ".NET/C# GUIs 'suck' on linux", just take a look at Banshee. It's nice (which Rythmbox is not). It's fast (which Amarok is not) and it's in C#.

Banshee is written in C# (using the Mono platform on Linux and OS X), using GNOME technologies (Gtk#, GStreamer, etc), and SQLite. It is free/open source software, released under the MIT/X11 license.

http://banshee.fm/about/
'nuff said

[Znurre]

uhm, they are called "interfaces" in C#/Java. (srsly, that's one thing I hate about C++, why do I've to write down all function headers into a different file? that's like writing interfaces for every class in C#/Java. May someone be so kind to explain to me the advantage you get from that?)

Nope, interfaces and header files are very different.
Interfaces in Java and C# are like abstract classes, except that you can implement several at once.
In C++, you don't have interfaces, instead you can inherit multiple classes and some of them can be abstract classes, if that is what you want.

Separating the class declaration (header) from the actual implementation (source) makes the code cleaner.