Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mono Developers Go Bye-Bye From Attachmate

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Who needs Mono to create apps anyway? Are they lazy to learn other languages or simply incompetent to use alternatives?

    If you can't code in Java then you can't code. If you are lazy then I don't want to run your software as I hate fat software. And who doesn't?
    Troll much?

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Detructor View Post
      Qt -> KDE, that's not really "multi-platform".
      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

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
        Only mono stuff relating to windows compatibility is in any remote danger of patent issues, and those parts aren't needed for developing linux applications.
        C# is not needed for developing linux applications either.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by Detructor View Post
          F#, yeh I wanted to try that for some time. but are ocaml and F# really that compatible?
          F# is a cleaner, more modern version of Ocaml. It's backwards compatible to a point.

          These are multiparadigm languages so you can program in the style that most suits you. Gradually you'll start finding the functional style more natural (simpler, safer) to use and soon after you'll never see programming the same way again.

          C++ is a good language to have in your toolkit, but a functional language will make you a better programmer than C++ ever will. Besides, the more diverse your skills are, the higher the chances of getting the job when you reach for a non-grunt level position.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            C# is not needed for developing linux applications either.
            Neither is C++, Python, Java, Ruby, Perl, PHP or Haskel. Yet there you are.

            Diversity is the destiny of Free software.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
              .NET is an ECMA standard, stop letting your irrational paranoia control your thoughts. Only mono stuff relating to windows compatibility is in any remote danger of patent issues, and those parts aren't needed for developing linux applications.
              The following namespaces are open:

              System
              System.Collections
              System.Diagnostics
              System.Globalization
              System.IO
              System.Net
              System.Reflection
              System.Runtime
              System.Security
              System.Text
              System.Threading
              System.Xml

              The following namespaces are proprietary:

              System.CodeDom
              System.ComponentModel
              System.Configuration
              System.Data
              System.Deployment
              System.DirectoryServices
              System.Drawing
              Ssytem.EnterpriseServices
              System.Linq
              System.Linq.Expressions
              System.Management
              System.Media
              System.Messaging
              System.Web
              System.Windows.Forms

              Comment


              • #57
                Which doesn't mean you cannot re-implement them and use them in a Free application. Ffmpeg is under pretty much the same situation (arguably worse, since there's no patent promise) but that doesn't stop Free software from relying on it.

                If you really believe that, then are you willing to delete anything related to mp3, mpeg1/2/3, h264, flash and skype from your computer? Didn't think so.

                Comment


                • #58
                  For extra commentary, I would like to see a legal implementation of the open namespaces. Any attempt by Microsoft to enforce patents on them would fail miserably because of their legally-binding community promise. This open framework would also pose no threat to them because Windows apps couldn't be ported. The aim of the project wouldn't be to have compatibility with .NET, it would be to use the CLR as the foundation of a viable platform. Focusing only on the open namespaces would greatly reduce the amount of work and maintenance required. Third party projects could fill in the gaps with data access and so on.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
                    The following namespaces are proprietary:
                    ...
                    System.Linq
                    System.Linq.Expressions
                    Just an FYI, but at least those 2 assemblies/namespaces are covered by patent grants:

                    http://dlr.codeplex.com

                    Check out the license file (Apache 2.0 for those too lazy to investigate for themselves).

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      Neither is C++, Python, Java, Ruby, Perl, PHP or Haskel. Yet there you are.

                      Diversity is the destiny of Free software.
                      Agreed. Unfortunately these hypocrites constantly bashing mono will never realize common sense.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X