Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Who's Leading The Development Of Mono

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,698

    Default Who's Leading The Development Of Mono

    Phoronix: Who's Leading The Development Of Mono

    Here's some new statistics considering the development of the controversial Mono open-source ECMA CLI, C# and .NET implementation...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE3NzQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,198

    Default Implementation status

    Some useful links about implementation status and future roadmaps and features supported and planned features.

    http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
    http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap
    http://go-mono.com/status/
    http://www.mono-project.com/Plans

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
    Last edited by 0xCAFE; 09-06-2012 at 10:04 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    in b4 mono trolls

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xCAFE View Post
    Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
    because Mono is fucking controversiolest ?)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xCAFE View Post
    Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
    all this controversial questioning sounds controversial...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Some useful links about implementation status and future roadmaps and features supported and planned features.

    http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
    http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap
    http://go-mono.com/status/
    http://www.mono-project.com/Plans
    According to the project site Moonlight is still active even though Miguel says it's abandoned.

    They're also not implementing WPF because Silverlight is better.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0xCAFE View Post
    Why does Phoronix have to put the word "controversial" in every Mono related article? Almost everything has its proponents and its opponents. Why do we never read "the controversial Linux", "the controversial Mac OS", "the controversial Fedora", "the controversial Ubuntu", "the controversial Phoronix", "the controversial Gnome", "the controversial KDE", "the controversial Unity", "the controversial nVidia", "the controversial C++"? Because it's stupid. So why do it in articles about Mono?
    You're wrong about one thing, and I criticized the same thing in another topic: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...236#post284236
    I think that the "betrayal" feeling of a lot of Linux folks was when Novell did a partnership with Microsoft to create software that interroperates with Active Directory and so on for OpenSuse.
    In minds of many, as Miguel was always a fan of the advancements of .Net (and Mono), it appeared to many that Mono would be a Microsoft backed implementation.
    Also, there are sites like "Boycott Novell" whic got a lot of fuss and maybe a lot of fans in Phoronix lines.
    As for me, at least regarding .Net/Mono world, Microsoft was a nice citizen, and it wasn't about another areas (like ExtFAT with TomTom), when Apple didn't. They also had great projects like IronRuby/IronPython, which even may be "look, MS do want to lock us into .Net", some people always thought about old "embrace and extend" think that Microsoft was used to do it in 1990s.
    I think that in long term, Phoronix contributors should separate the idea that Mono is a Microsoft product, it isn't. It isn't anymore offensive than GCJ is an Oracle product. Yes, is true that some pieces are from Microsoft, but without them it will be the world the same. In fact as runtime, Mono is a C product (is written in C, for some years it was using GLib, but right now it removed this dependency), is a Java like product, is a GCC like product (by using a similar representation of optimizations as Gimple from GCC does), it is a primitive get effective Generational Garbage collector, is a LLVM product on Mono for Android and MonoTouch products. Attacking Mono as a technology, will likely disable a part of functionality, but it will likely be rewritten to give something equivalent.
    As for me, Mono brings a decent to work with virtual machine for Gtk/Gnome world which performs a bit slower than GCC, but well enough for most usages. People with little time that contribute in desktop Linux area, should not look for leaks, but for functionality and fill it correctly. In this way I think is invaluable for students that do learn C# in university, and they can contribute back easily into Gnome world. This makes me to think that the closest platform to develop as productive as Mono is, is probably: Python, and for critical parts to use either Cython or C/C++ modules, which some people did (like in Mercurial or in TortoiseHg), but I see no reason why not to write all in a platform like Mono.
    Also Mono packagers maybe should look to improve the startup time in some cases by using AOT compilation for most used modules. This would remove maybe for some the "meme" like: "look how slow Mono is, it takes 20 seconds to start Banshee with this big playlist on my netbook".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    234

    Default

    For fun I deployed one of my C# MVC3 web applications to Linux/Apache.

    IT WORKED. IT WORKED WELL!

    If mono can save me $$ in fees for running Win2k8 Server VMs for fairly small clients, I'll use it!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    And who of these contributors are not paid by Xamarin? Personally, I find it more interesting to learn whether Mono is a community project or a corporate project whose source just ends up being released.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •