Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mono Developers Go Bye-Bye From Attachmate

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

  • dufoli
    replied
    fed up of anti-mono trolls....

    Have you ever try QT/GTK/Winforms.
    I use GTK because I have too to be integrated in gnome but GTK is far more complicated and less designed than Winforms.

    I play a lot with mono/banshee/monotorrent/... and mono/.Net Framework is well designed.
    All company are here to make money even open source one... Remember the MySQL story... or sun for sooner one...
    And Nokia CEO is an old one from MS. He have choose WP7 for his phone.so what? Do we need to stop to work with QT now ? of course no

    The important for a project is not which company is behind the project because it can change (be bought...) but what community is behind and which licence does it use.
    mono is under open source licence.
    About patent, you can code in C# without patent. The patent are on winforms and ADO.NET part of framework.
    And both part are not used by different project related to mono on linux (banshee/tomboy/...). It is just maintain to get windows application compatible to Linux that's all...

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Let's check.

    Nice playing, but stupid arguments. By supporting C# you do not support Free Software at all. The essence of FLOSS is GPL and GPL is here to not support competitiors. Using C# you do support the biggest FLOSS competitor. By using C# over Qt or other Free Software friendly languages you prove you do not support FLOSS at all.
    From wikipedia:

    "Free software, software libre or libre software is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with minimal restrictions only to ensure that further recipients can also do these things and that manufacturers of consumer-facing hardware allow user modifications to their hardware."

    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.

    @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.

    The essence of FLOSS is GPL and GPL is here to not support competitiors.
    The essense of the GPL is this. It explicitly promotes competition by allowing everyone interested to copy, modify and redistribute the code.

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

    By using C# over Qt or other Free Software friendly languages you prove you do not support FLOSS at all.
    Did you just say that Qt is a language?

    Ahahhhahaaaa, thanks, you just made my day!

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    Second, you say that we (the open-source world) doesn't need C#. This is inconsistent with the meaning of Free Software and by saying this, you prove that you do not support Free software at all - even though you claim you do.
    Damn I can't understand a single word of your argument here bro...

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
    Are you guys for real? I, for one, liked the option of having a C# compiler on Linux.
    While options is a good thing, this is not a big deal. Better to use the resources and manpower to other more viable projects. There are hundreds of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    Because your arguments are not internally consistent.
    Let's check.

    First, you say use Java instead of Mono when Java is backed by a significantly worse company as far as open-source is concerned: Oracle.
    I prefer Qt over java, but I prefer Java over Mono. Java is backed by a significantly better company compared to MS, because Oracle supports Linux in some way. MS wants to tax or kill Linux and they don't support it. While both companies are bad in general to Open Source, Oracle doesn't compete with Linux on desktops.

    Second, you say that we (the open-source world) doesn't need C#. This is inconsistent with the meaning of Free Software and by saying this, you prove that you do not support Free software at all - even though you claim you do.
    Nice playing, but stupid arguments. By supporting C# you do not support Free Software at all. The essence of FLOSS is GPL and GPL is here to not support competitiors. Using C# you do support the biggest FLOSS competitor. By using C# over Qt or other Free Software friendly languages you prove you do not support FLOSS at all.

    Third, you celebrate when open-source developers lose their jobs. Great, now they will finally get the chance to work for some closed-source, windows-only company. Happy?
    Open Source != FLOSS. When open source developers support competitors (like bsd, mono folks) then I'm happy when it ends.

    Want more?
    Of course. I can't wait to read some other revelations, but give some proofs this time.

    Leave a comment:


  • locovaca
    replied
    Originally posted by Znurre View Post
    Well, just look at the method definition and you see that it would take either int &i or int i.
    It's really the same as out/ref in C#, except that the syntax (imo.) is cleaner ^^
    I would argue that having a cleaner syntax makes it better.

    In any case, passing by ref and objects with out parameters usually means someone doesn't "get" OOP. You normally see people complain about them when they try to write C code in C#. But for those who need them, they are there, unlike Java.

    Leave a comment:


  • Znurre
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    What's the value of i after the call? In C++ you cannot know, leading to hard-to-find bugs. In C# you know it will be 0.
    Well, just look at the method definition and you see that it would take either int &i or int i.
    It's really the same as out/ref in C#, except that the syntax (imo.) is cleaner ^^

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Ha, getting reassigned within same company is not big deal.
    Those people aren't getting reassigned. They are getting laid off. As in, "off you go and thanks for all the fish".

    Besides, Novell doesn't exist anymore. This *is* a different company, Attachmate, that offers "Windows 7 optimized solutions" (from their website) and whose base of operations is in a different country (Germany). That's quite a big freaking deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by Znurre View Post
    Of course I know this, but I was referring to the syntax.
    In C# you never choose whetver you want to pass something by reference or value, correct me if I am wrong but the ref "operator" seems to be only for decoration.
    Actually, that's incorrect:

    Code:
    class Test
    {
        void Foo(int i) { i = 5; }
        void Bar(ref int i) { i = 10; }
        public static void Main()
        {
            int i = 0;
            Foo(i);
            Console.WriteLine(i);
            Bar(ref i);
            Console.WriteLine(i);
        }
    }
    The reason for the confusion is that in C# (like in Java) class are reference types (C#, unlike Java, also provides value types, i.e. structs), so you can pass a reference type by value (default) or by reference (ref/out keywords). There is a subtle - but important! - distinction between the two: in the first case, if you assign null to the parameter inside the function, this won't be reflected outside the function; in the second case, the change will affect the parameter outside the function, too. (The same thing would happen if you assigned a new instance).

    At least I really like the strict syntax of C++ with pointers, references etc.
    I feel that C++ references leave a lot to be desired. They cannot be reseated (i.e. once you assign a reference to a variable, it is an error to reassign that variable), they cannot be stored in vectors or standard containers (due to the above) and they are silent and deadly. For instance this:
    Code:
    int i = 0;
    Foo(i);
    what's the value of i after the call? In C++ you cannot know, leading to hard-to-find bugs. In C# you know it will be 0.

    At least with pointers, you have the distinction between Foo(i) and Foo(&i), telling you everything you need to know at a glance.

    In short, C# is better-design than C++, simply because it takes the experience we gained with C++ (and Java, Delphi and various) and distills it into something with fewer pitfalls and corner-cases.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    Great, now they will finally get the chance to work for some closed-source, windows-only company. Happy?

    Want more?
    Ha, getting reassigned within same company is not big deal.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X