Page 14 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 315

Thread: Why Mono Is Desirable For Linux

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ciplogic View Post
    I 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?
    Opensource 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.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    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:
    http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents
    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.
    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.

    Also:
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTE0NTg
    Xamarin is also working closely with Microsoft
    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.
    Last edited by n3wu53r; 09-16-2012 at 06:58 PM.

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ciplogic View Post
    I 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?
    You should only care about the language the software uses if it affects the quality of the product. Example: Java for desktop apps is awful. Ugly and resource hungry.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Something 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.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3wu53r View Post
    Something 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.
    Typically 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)

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    Typically 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)
    Ooh 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.

  7. #137
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3wu53r View Post
    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).
    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.

    Also GTK# still only binds to gtk 2.x, no 3.x supports yet. Besides I prefer Qt anyways.
    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#

    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 conspiracy theory states that this means Mono is at more risk, not less. The specifics of why are never shared, nor why other things under the same community promise (e.g. IPv6) are safe.

    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:
    http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents

    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.
    Correct on both counts.

    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.
    This is called Promissory Estoppel, in legalese.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3wu53r View Post
    Ooh 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.
    A new (apparently good) Qt binding now exists, although it's not been packaged in any distros AFAIK.

    https://gitorious.org/assemblygen

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    A new (apparently good) Qt binding now exists, although it's not been packaged in any distros AFAIK.

    https://gitorious.org/assemblygen
    Looks interesting. Doesn't seem to be a stable release yet but I'll check that out.
    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.
    I'm not talking about bugs. Just that runtimes in general add a nice big overhead. Maybe I'm just nitpicking. I also find high level languages are much more tolerant when it comes to sloppy programming.

    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#
    You sure? Java-gnome has 3.x support. http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/
    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.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lapis View Post
    Opensource 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.
    According to Wikipedia, firefox is written in many languages.
    "C/C++, JavaScript, CSS, XUL, XBL"

Posting Permissions

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