Originally posted by ciplogic
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why Mono Is Desirable For Linux
Collapse
X
-
I just want to weigh in here.
I don't like mono. I don't like .net. Not because of microsoft or patents. I just don't like it from a purely technical perspective. Almost all the apps I have used running Mono (or java for that matter), have had poor stability and performance compared to native apps. I didn't like C# or Java all that much from the little time I spent with the language(s). Also GTK# still only binds to gtk 2.x, no 3.x supports yet. Besides I prefer Qt anyways.
But Mono having patent issues is total bullshit. C# was ECMA standardized and there was the whole community promise thing from MS that says they won't sue anyone using the ECMA standard parts of C#/.net.
The only things you have to worry about are non-standardized parts. The parts that Mono needs for windows compatibility, like Windows.Forms. If MS sues for that then:
For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Also:
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
Xamarin is also working closely with MicrosoftLast edited by n3wu53r; 16 September 2012, 06:58 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ciplogic View PostI think that this was also the point of the article: a software engineer is paid from some hundreds of dollars to some tens thousands. The tool price for software engineers is important, but Linux without applications, is like the WebOS: very standard but not targeted.
If you lose, if you will use the very same rant on Android, the talk will be about Java and Android: you help Oracle indirectly when you develop on Android (if you don't use Xamarin). If you are serious about developing you have to buy closed hardware (is any open-hardware Android phone!?), if you don't buy a Nexus, most of the time you use a draconian carrier. Is it better with Windows Phone? Or with iOS? Android will block you between different corporations, either way!
The idea that Microsoft gets tools, is really great, not for Microsoft, but for people that are using those tools. Do you want that developers to not use Microsoft tools? Contribute to MonoDevelop or SharpDevelop project. Really, nothing stops you (excluding your ideology) to do so. And developers, given the opportunity, will use those tools.
Most of Firefox is developed with Visual Studio and with XCode. Do you care that Apple gets licenses and sells hardware if you can use Firefox? Do you care if Google contribute to LLVM's Clang to improve code quality? Do you care if Google use for most of their Java development the paid version of IntelliJ IDEA or Perforce? Or you care about which software they bring to you?
Why would a developer not use the best tool even if is expensive? DevC++ was the IDE I used in university to compile my C++ programs. It was written in proprietary Delphi. So what? If basically one developer could finish the challenge to finish an IDE that people can use, I did not mind that he used Delphi, why should I?
Comment
-
Originally posted by n3wu53r View PostSomething I want to also point out not in my previous post.
Mono is an alternative implementation of .net, which is developed by MS. They have to re-implement what MS releases. They will always be a step behind.
As an example, .NET 5.0 will ship a REPL shell called "Roslyn" when it is released (the latest stable is 4.5), whereas Mono has shipped a REPL called "csharp" since 2008
Libraries are another matter. Fortunately, most of these are either Windows-specific so not interesting on Mono, or Microsoft has started shipping their implementations under FOSS licenses (e.g. ASP.NET MVC 1,2,3,4; IronPython; IronRuby; Dynamic Language Runtime; Entity Framework; Razor templating framework)
Comment
-
Originally posted by directhex View PostTypically Mono implements features before Microsoft.NET. Feature gets announced at conference; Mono does preliminary implementation; Microsoft ships beta version with changed behaviour; Mono updates to match latest version of feature, where applicable; Microsoft ships stable version
As an example, .NET 5.0 will ship a REPL shell called "Roslyn" when it is released (the latest stable is 4.5), whereas Mono has shipped a REPL called "csharp" since 2008
Libraries are another matter. Fortunately, most of these are either Windows-specific so not interesting on Mono, or Microsoft has started shipping their implementations under FOSS licenses (e.g. ASP.NET MVC 1,2,3,4; IronPython; IronRuby; Dynamic Language Runtime; Entity Framework; Razor templating framework)
Still doesn't make me like Mono (or most high-level languages for that matter). :P
Perhaps I would be more interested if there was a GTK3 or Qt binding.
Comment
-
Originally posted by n3wu53r View PostI just want to weigh in here.
I don't like mono. I don't like .net. Not because of microsoft or patents. I just don't like it from a purely technical perspective. Almost all the apps I have used running Mono (or java for that matter), have had poor stability and performance compared to native apps. I didn't like C# or Java all that much from the little time I spent with the language(s).
Also GTK# still only binds to gtk 2.x, no 3.x supports yet. Besides I prefer Qt anyways.
But Mono having patent issues is total bullshit. C# was ECMA standardized and there was the whole community promise thing from MS that says they won't sue anyone using the ECMA standard parts of C#/.net.
The only things you have to worry about are non-standardized parts. The parts that Mono needs for windows compatibility, like Windows.Forms. If MS sues for that then:
So it won't kill off mono. (1) sounds very plausible, and many software patents are bullshit and have prior art for them. Actually patenting software is bullshit but that is another story.
If Microsoft is directly helping out Mono, and then they later sue, Xamarin (company behind mono) can argue in court that the help from Microsoft constitutes approval of the project.
Comment
-
Originally posted by n3wu53r View PostOoh interesting.
Still doesn't make me like Mono (or most high-level languages for that matter). :P
Perhaps I would be more interested if there was a GTK3 or Qt binding.
Comment
-
Originally posted by directhex View PostA new (apparently good) Qt binding now exists, although it's not been packaged in any distros AFAIK.
https://gitorious.org/assemblygen
Does it matter if no distro has it packaged? Won't apps produced using this only have dependencies on Mono and Qt?
Poor performance is a bug. Often, it's a bug in underlying C code. A recent famous case of unbearable performance in Banshee when shuffling was due to a bug in the latest version of (C-based) SQlite, for example.
There's a blocking GTK+ bug right now preventing the release of GTK# 3, and upstream aren't interested because it only messes with statically typed languages which bind to GTK, such as Java or C#
I would like a link to this bug.
Still, you can never expect co-operation from gnome upstream. Ever.
Another thing. Why is mono bad but WINE and CrossOver a miracle? Can someone give me a rational answer without trolling. I would really like to know. Not sarcastic here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lapis View PostOpensource the tools of development are important.but firefox writes a software using c language.C is a standard and runs a lot of open source compilers .Firefox case is different.
"C/C++, JavaScript, CSS, XUL, XBL"
Comment
Comment