Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mono 2.0 and .NET On Linux

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the receding-taillights dept.

Microsoft 405

Several readers noted the release of Mono 2.0, which is compatible with Microsoft's .NET Framework 2.0. According to Miguel de Icaza, "... users can move over server applications built for .NET and client applications built with Windows Forms." InternetNews points out that only about half of the .NET apps out there will work on Mono 2.0, for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) legacy Windows-only libraries and Microsoft's progress on .NET 3.0 and 3.5 APIs.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh just go away (-1, Troll)

toby (759) | about 6 years ago | (#25282213)

If we wanted to run crappy Microsoft technologies, we'd just go buy Windows, wouldn't we?

Your precious little synergies (poisonous little stratagems) may please your masters but they don't make Microsoft relevant.

Re:Oh just go away (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 years ago | (#25282253)

If we wanted to run crappy Microsoft technologies, we'd just go buy Windows, wouldn't we?

That must be why the WINE project is such a silly idea... oh wait...

Re:Oh just go away (5, Insightful)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25282529)

There's a big difference between the two - because devs don't target WINE, WINE is the "embrace" part of moving from Windows. Because devs target .NET, .NET is the "embrace" part of moving from Linux.

So, these two technologies are actually on opposing sides of this particular ideological fence - one is an attempt at removing lock-in, the other is an attempt at locking-in.

Re:Oh just go away (2, Interesting)

Tatsh (893946) | about 6 years ago | (#25282573)

The only .NET apps I use are nLite and vLite. The fact that these both launch native apps means that perhaps the interfaces (which are AFAIK Windows.Forms) will load but they will not be able to be front-ends to their Windows native apps that they are launch. This is very unfortunate and I wish Wine and Mono could work together to solve this problem. A lot of .NET apps launch non-.NET apps. They should at least make an #ifdef __WINE__ or something to allow the Exec() command or whatever it is to replace the command with a Unix command like wine . Most things will probably work okay.

Re:Oh just go away (5, Insightful)

Kentaree (1078787) | about 6 years ago | (#25282585)

You're not making much sense. Yes, people don't target WINE, they target the Windows API, just like they target the .NET API. Wine is a means of running Windows code on linux, Mono is a means of running .NET code on linux. People will be writing code for both, so might as well support running it on linux.

Re:Oh just go away (2, Insightful)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25282631)

*sigh*

WINE removes lock-in, .NET provides it. WINE helps people leave windows and still keep their legacy applications. Mono provides a way for new applications to be moved from Linux to Windows.

Unless, of course, the argument is made that there are legacy applications in .NET that can be run on Mono, in which case we have bigger problems, such as lack of intellectual integrity on the part of those making the argument

Re:Oh just go away (5, Insightful)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 6 years ago | (#25282825)

Before I tear apart what you think passes for an argument, let me say that the Mono folks are doing an amazing job and they get way too little credit. The tinfoil hat brigade around here seems to have taken on Mono as its personal whipping boy, and it's totally unfair and uncalled for.

WINE removes lock-in, .NET provides it.

Sure, but weren't you supposed to be talking about Mono there somewhere? Java used to provide lock-in, too. Hence, the GNU Classpath project, which is pretty much identical in its goals to Mono. Funny that I never saw you people screaming about that one being a trap.

WINE helps people leave windows and still keep their legacy applications. Mono provides a way for new applications to be moved from Linux to Windows.

Wow, get some perspective there. How many killer apps are there on Linux that the Windows people are craving? KDE? Gnome? Firefox? OpenOffice? None of those are on .NET and most of them run on Windows, anyway. Do you think that Firefox, OOo and KDE are all helping people move away from Linux by providing Windows ports? Isn't it more likely that without those Windows ports, most of these projects would go nowhere?

It's really quite obvious to anyone with any actual knowledge of how the industry works that people are going to write applications without Linux in mind. The Mono project, just like the Wine project, lets people who run Linux run applications that other people wrote for Windows.

As it turns out, there's also a bunch of useful libraries that Mono includes that you can use when coding for platforms other than Windows. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that this is somehow a trap. It's just a useful way to access Unixy things on Mono. But it clearly can't be breaking Linux lock-in or whatever pea-brained scheme you've come up with.

Unless, of course, the argument is made that there are legacy applications in .NET that can be run on Mono, in which case we have bigger problems, such as lack of intellectual integrity on the part of those making the argument

.NET has been around for 7-8 years now. Do you honestly think code can't become legacy in that amount of time? Here's a tip: if you think Linux has any lock-in potential for applications written on it, then perhaps you shouldn't talk too much about intellectual integrity.

Re:Oh just go away (0, Troll)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25282907)

Before I tear apart what you think passes for an argument,

Ad hominem

let me say that the Mono folks are doing an amazing job and they get way too little credit.

Irrelevant - I did not begrudge them their due.

The tinfoil hat brigade around here seems to have taken on Mono as its personal whipping boy, and it's totally unfair and uncalled for.

WINE removes lock-in, .NET provides it.

Sure, but weren't you supposed to be talking about Mono there somewhere? Java used to provide lock-in, too. Hence, the GNU Classpath project, which is pretty much identical in its goals to Mono. Funny that I never saw you people screaming about that one being a trap.

Then you have a short memory.

WINE helps people leave windows and still keep their legacy applications. Mono provides a way for new applications to be moved from Linux to Windows.

Wow, get some perspective there. How many killer apps are there on Linux that the Windows people are craving? KDE? Gnome? Firefox? OpenOffice? None of those are on .NET and most of them run on Windows, anyway. Do you think that Firefox, OOo and KDE are all helping people move away from Linux by providing Windows ports? Isn't it more likely that without those Windows ports, most of these projects would go nowhere?

Strawman, I never claimed anything like that, the majority of applications are in-house development efforts, and there are more portable and less legally dangerous alternatives to .NET

It's really quite obvious to anyone with any actual knowledge of how the industry works that people are going to write applications without Linux in mind. The Mono project, just like the Wine project, lets people who run Linux run applications that other people wrote for Windows.

Wine does, certainly.

As it turns out, there's also a bunch of useful libraries that Mono includes that you can use when coding for platforms other than Windows. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that this is somehow a trap.

I believe it is because your experience of the industry might just be limited to software for the masses, and not the majority of software written.

It's just a useful way to access Unixy things on Mono. But it clearly can't be breaking Linux lock-in or whatever pea-brained scheme you've come up with.

Irrelevant, Ad hominem and a strawman. Well Done!!!

Unless, of course, the argument is made that there are legacy applications in .NET that can be run on Mono, in which case we have bigger problems, such as lack of intellectual integrity on the part of those making the argument

.NET has been around for 7-8 years now. Do you honestly think code can't become legacy in that amount of time? Here's a tip: if you think Linux has any lock-in potential for applications written on it, then perhaps you shouldn't talk too much about intellectual integrity.

I leave the above in purely to demonstrate your lack of an argument.

Re:Oh just go away (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 6 years ago | (#25283005)

You're not much of a debater. Yes, there's an ad hominem in there (but only one, not two as you claim). However, ad hominems don't invalidate anything else I said, and it's not necessarily even false. I still think you're a pea-brained moron and your response has done nothing to change that.

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to my argument against you thinking there's Linux lock-in that Mono is breaking. Or present some other argument that I shall take great pleasure in mocking similarly.

Re:Oh just go away (-1, Troll)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25283041)

You're not much of a debater. Yes, there's an ad hominem in there (but only one, not two as you claim). However, ad hominems don't invalidate anything else I said, and it's not necessarily even false. I still think you're a pea-brained moron and your response has done nothing to change that.

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to my argument against you thinking there's Linux lock-in that Mono is breaking.

I never claimed that Linux had lock-in potential, which is, as I already said, a strawman. You present an obviously moronic line of reasoning as being mine, then proceed to knock it down. Well Done, again!!! (care to go for a hat-trick?)

My claim is that of the two techs mentioned (Wine and .NET), one enables migration from Windows, the other prevents it.

Or present some other argument that I shall take great pleasure in mocking similarly.

Newsflash: Some mocking is certainly occurring, but I'm not the one being got at ;-)

Consider this EOFF

Re:Oh just go away (4, Insightful)

Uber Banker (655221) | about 6 years ago | (#25283087)

WINE is as to Windows as Mono is as to .NET This is basic logical reasoning.

Re:Oh just go away (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25283109)

It's false logic, as demonstrated by the fact that people don't target Wine, but do target Mono.

Also, Wine is not legally encumbered, Novell needs cross-patent deals with MS, Wine devs have never needed so. This attempt to equate Wine and Mono as somehow "the same thing" is intellectually dishonest.

Re:Oh just go away (2, Informative)

stompertje (927012) | about 6 years ago | (#25282871)

Wine makes it possible to run Windows applications, built on the WIN32 API, to run on Linux. Mono makes it possible to run Windows applications, built on the .NET framework, to run on Linux. In both cases, most applications will probably be developed primarily for Windows, but can also be run on Linux. Yes, you can develop .NET apps on Linux, run them on Linux and then move to Windows while keeping your .NET apps. That doesn't mean that Mono provides lock-in. It just means that .NET/Mono comes closer to cross-platform portability than WIN32/Wine does...

Re:Oh just go away (2, Interesting)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 6 years ago | (#25282875)

I for one look forward to games coming out using .net and managed opengl libs. Suddenly game makers won't have to do much work at all to write games that perform well on windows, linux, even osx. Sounds like removing lock-in to me

Re:Oh just go away (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 6 years ago | (#25282957)

really? I thought MS has dropped support for OpenGL, apart from its very legacy v1.1 base. And you know they will never write a managed wrapper for it.

So, who will write a .NET game using opengl? If you're a Windows dev (and most game devs are) then you'll be using DirectX.NET, which oh so conveniently is not available for Linux.

So close. Yet so immensely far. Do you see the problem now? Its business a usual for MS, but with the added bonus of saying "But we are working on Linux interoperability, Mr DoJ, look - Mono".

Re:Oh just go away (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282295)

Tell me what is so crappy about .Net?

Re:Oh just go away (3, Informative)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25282575)

Patent encumbered lock-in of future software?

Re:Oh just go away (5, Interesting)

Merusdraconis (730732) | about 6 years ago | (#25282379)

Except that C# is a decent little language? It's good to see it open-source, that way it can have a life after Microsoft tires of it.

Re:Oh just go away (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282765)

c# is not open source, is patent riddend and the life of mono on linux depends only on the god will of microsoft, on which feel free to bet your guts.

Re:Oh just go away (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 years ago | (#25282989)

To be pedantic I think the C# language definition is open source. What isn't is the runtime. You could write a C# compiler with its own runtime and you'd have a pretty nifty alternative to Java.

What you can't do is copy the windows runtime. I wonder how mono would do if Microsoft invoked patents against it. I suspect not well, but with Mono in its current state it is to MS's advantage - they can say they are multi-platform but know that most people will give up because of the 50% of programs that won't run and turn to Windows.

Re:Oh just go away (3, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 6 years ago | (#25282983)

well, it snot that decent a little language. Its a MS port of Java with extra bits added mainly in the realm of the GUI and interop with legacy COM and Win32.

They have added extra features that are cool, like LINQ, but I feel they'll be heavily misused over the coming years. They've also adding features like extension functions which will make scripting languages look like statically strong-typed languages compared to C# as time goes by.

Its also pretty complex for a little language, I'm seeing a lot of people complaining on the web about how they're using up all their memory followed by little tutorials on Dispose and releasing objects so they actually get disconnected and then freed by the GC.

I think if it wasn't for curly braces, and the .NET class library, hardly anyone would be using it. Imagine if MS only released VB.NET, you wouldn't use it, the classic VB crowd wouldn't use it, but its practically the same language as C#.

BTW. C#2 is a standard, C#3 is not. MS has promised to submit it, but they havn't yet.

Re:Oh just go away (1)

renoX (11677) | about 6 years ago | (#25283035)

So what? Decent languages are a dime a dozen: Scala, D, Ada..
They are alternatives which don't tie you to Windows.

Re:Oh just go away (5, Interesting)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 6 years ago | (#25282399)

I don't want to run my stuff on Microsoft technologies but I have potential (and actual) customers who already do use them.

In order to integrate their application and ours we needed to code a little plugin to run on their ASP.NET (or whatever the correct name is) servers.

Mono allowed me to develop the required plugin on a Ubuntu box. (They then wanted the resulting assembly signed, we gave them the source code so they could do it themselves).

Microsoft was relevant to us because we had a potential customer who used it and isn't about to abandon their entire existing system just for us.

Without Mono there would have been two options:
a) Pony up to MS to develop in .NET
b) Don't do the business.
neither of which are particularly appealing.

Mono allows competition and competition is good.

Re:Oh just go away (4, Insightful)

what about (730877) | about 6 years ago | (#25282587)

Mono is Java in disguise, if you want cross platforms without traps use Java

It is like the mortgage crash, a few saw it coming, they said so, but the majority didn't care

A few people says that Mono is a legal and technology trap (search the web for mono trap), in the future this will reveal true, do not forget that you where warned

Re:Oh just go away (0, Flamebait)

supersnail (106701) | about 6 years ago | (#25282687)

Except C# is much better than Java and .NET is much better than J2EE.

Re:Oh just go away (0, Flamebait)

supersnail (106701) | about 6 years ago | (#25282865)

FLAMEBAIT -- get a life!
Anyone who has experience of both J2EE and .NET will tell you that .NET is better thought out, has a more consistant design,
has cleaner easier to use APIs, scales better, performs better
and is altogether a much nicer environment to work in.

I am sorry if this upsets the Slashdot worldview but its the truth.
Microsfot are better at software than Sun.
 

Re:Oh just go away (3, Insightful)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 6 years ago | (#25282995)

FLAMEBAIT -- get a life! Anyone who has experience of both J2EE and .NET will tell you that .NET is better thought out, has a more consistant design, has cleaner easier to use APIs, scales better, performs better and is altogether a much nicer environment to work in.

I am sorry if this upsets the Slashdot worldview but its the truth. Microsfot are better at software than Sun.

Anyone who has experience of both Apache and IIS will tell you that IIS is better thought out, has a more consistant design, has cleaner easier to use APIs, scales better, performs better and is altogether a much nicer environment to work in.

I am sorry if this upsets the Slashdot worldview but its the truth. Microsfot are better at software than FLOSS Devs.

Because, we all know that those are the only things that matter when gambling your future - your legal liability is irrelevant.

Re:Oh just go away (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 6 years ago | (#25283009)

J2EE v .NET is not the same comparison. Java v Net is.

Does it really scale better? Or is it that no-one notices any more because computers have got more RAM and faster CPUs nowadays.

the API is (well, was) almost entirely the old Java/J++ class library.

Now that said, you're still right. MS *is* better at development software than Sun. Visual Studio is best in its class and .NET is easier to use mainly because of that. I wouldn't like to type out those long, long namespaced methods without the IDE to autocomplete for me!

Re:Oh just go away (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 6 years ago | (#25282607)

Web Services exist for this specific reason. You can create Java components and let your customers access it easily from their .NET code.

Re:Oh just go away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282769)

> Mono allows competition and competition is good.
So your saying the developer has to make a choice to recompile their application to run on mono?

Wouldnt it just be better if m$ just released a version of .net themselves and not get people like de icazza to move away from unfinished projects (ie gnome v0.2) and create new ones (ie moonlite + mono)?

Re:Oh just go away (3, Insightful)

Tatsh (893946) | about 6 years ago | (#25282511)

I agree. Why don't these people who want to use .NET (managed code) just use Java? At least that is platform agnostic (limited to whatever platforms Java is ported on).

By the way, what about dotGNU? http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ [gnu.org] At least that will be released under GPL and not some dual licence with GPL.

Re:Oh just go away (3, Insightful)

Jezza (39441) | about 6 years ago | (#25282513)

Or we can create something on Linux that has to run on Windows (for whatever reason). This is a two way street - Mono can create software that runs on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X AND Windows.

This isn't just getting Windows stuff to run on Linux.

Viewed from this perspective it is less important that Mono is behind .NET - if you're creating something new you target Mono and it should run on .NET

For many users Windows is where they are (stuck quite often) and they can't migrate 100% of their desktops to *nix, they have something that stops them on a number of systems. Mono means they can create applications that can run on a mix.

Re:Oh just go away (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282811)

the portability is a myth. look at how much applications are written in a portable way (OpenOffice, for example)

posix and c/c++ where portable and uniform across operating system for at least three decades, and if cross platform development doesn't thrive on those, then none of those wannabe portable languages will do any good for portability.

portability using a common runtime is a myth, and is a weird version of the microsoft format lockin (yes applies to Java too). look at how many platform debian packages are compiled towards, THAT is portability.

Re:Oh just go away (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | about 6 years ago | (#25282839)

How the fuck does this kind of pig headed zealotry get modded Insightful?

You should take things on their individual merit rather than some sort anti-whoever prejudice.

Mono is NOT merely to allow you to run Windows .NET applications, it is there to provide a platform independant runtime which you can develop in C# (for example) for.

Re:Oh just go away (0, Troll)

KiloByte (825081) | about 6 years ago | (#25283023)

Do you want Vista? I don't. .NET makes everything bloated to an insane degree.

Some Gnome guys try to push a piece of crock named "Tomboy notes". If you try it, it will take more memory than the whole rest of Gnome together. And Gnome, well, isn't quite the paragon of being bloat-free.

So what... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282235)

I don't think it should surprise anybody that Mono 2.0 cannot handle applications written for .Net 3.0 or 3.5...

I like Mono, but... (5, Insightful)

telchine (719345) | about 6 years ago | (#25282251)

I like Mono, I really do, however it's always playing catch-up, it's by it's very nature it's always going to be one step behind Microsoft. Without the support of features in .Net 3.5, very few people are going to choose it for new developments.

Re:I like Mono, but... (3, Insightful)

Toreo asesino (951231) | about 6 years ago | (#25282337)

For the record, the new stuff takes time to trickle into mainstream development anyway, so Mono gets to at least focus on implementing the stuff the industry considers important too rather than just Microsoft.

Re:I like Mono, but... (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 years ago | (#25282537)

From a little experience with WINE which is in the same situation, every application uses the same 95% core but the 5% obscure stuff is different from every app. And unlike people that have the ability to say "Well, if OpenOffice is 95% of what MS Office is it's good enough", applications have a nasty way of crashing unless their obscure requirements are met. It can be a useful crutch at times but it's nothing like a good platform to build cross-platform applications on. Or rather, the OSS community's applications will be compatible with Windows but the Windows applications won't be compatible with Linux, which is pretty much where we are today already.

Re:I like Mono, but... (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#25282349)

I don't know, I've been using .Net 2's generics on Fedora for a while now, which was the main reason I moved my code to 2.0 when I started re-writing things (at first .Net 2.0 wasn't common enough to assume people had it installed). Looking at the .Net 3.0 and 3.5 changes [wikipedia.org] I can't see a huge amount of "must have" features. In fact, 3.0 seems like a bit of a damp squib in terms of features added since 2.0 compared to 3.5 against 3.0.

Just because a newer version is available doesn't mean everyone will automatically use it. Given the license fees, I can see a lot of Windows people sticking with VS.Net 2005 and not upgrading to 2008.

Re:I like Mono, but... (3, Interesting)

zermous (1196831) | about 6 years ago | (#25282459)

I've been using visualstudio since the very beginning, and c# since the very beginning, and 2008 is the first upgrade so far that I have declined. I'm sure its time will come, but not for a while longer.

Re:I like Mono, but... (4, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 6 years ago | (#25282359)

I like Mono, I really do, however it's always playing catch-up

Ahhh! So that's why people with mono always look so tired. All this time I thought they were sick.

Re:I like Mono, but... (2, Interesting)

SandmanWAIX (674838) | about 6 years ago | (#25282385)

Yeah this is true, but for some of us this is acceptable.

Linux users are an additional market for the product I help develop and we have never really worried about it. I have been waiting for this mono milestone before bothering with mono, however now that they are there I dont mind putting the resources in and testing the waters.

If everything goes smoothly I can see us offering a linux flavour very soon. Our current product operates on .NET Framework 2.0 SP1.

Re:I like Mono, but... (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 years ago | (#25282467)

Seriously though, what applications are using Net 3.5 instead of all the stuff that can only run with Net 1.0 or Net 2.0? Today I installed the September release of some ridulously expensive software and it required Net 1.0. This software also runs on mono with a bit of dodgy linking (pretending that libexif is a different version - weird becuase it has no business being a dependancy in the first place unless you need it).

I really do not understand why Net is not backwards compatible but I suppose at least I should be happy that the libraries can co-exist instead of the old DLL hell. Microsofts attempt to replace Java could have been implemented in a better way.

How much decent Net software is there out there anyway? Is it all in-house so we never see it? I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it.

Re:I like Mono, but... (1)

jaxtherat (1165473) | about 6 years ago | (#25282693)

How much decent Net software is there out there anyway? Is it all in-house so we never see it? I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it.

Not really a killer app, but pretty nifty nonetheless: http://www.getpaint.net/ [getpaint.net] (paint.NET)

Re:I like Mono, but... (1)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | about 6 years ago | (#25282783)

Seriously though, what applications are using Net 3.5 instead of all the stuff that can only run with Net 1.0 or Net 2.0?

The ones being written now.

Re:I like Mono, but... (2, Interesting)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about 6 years ago | (#25283155)

The ones being written now.

Not true... I code .NET for a living (and we always ensure Mono compatibility at every build for the majority of our projects) and we're sticking with .NET 2.0 simply because there's nothing in the 3.0 or 3.5 releases that we're interested in. They just don't do anything we need. This is likely true for a great number of developers judging from other projects I see out there and also the posts from several people here.

Re:I like Mono, but... (2, Interesting)

jesterzog (189797) | about 6 years ago | (#25282887)

How much decent Net software is there out there anyway? Is it all in-house so we never see it? I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it.

Well any website with pages that end in .aspx is written in .Net, for one thing. We certainly develop a lot of in-house apps using .Net, and we also have a lot of intranet (and some internet) stuff that's built on it.

If you just want apps that'll run in a controlled Windows environment within an organisation then it's not bad. It's definitely much cleaner to work with than the Windows API, as long as what you actually want to do is supported by the .Net framework and libraries. As soon as you hit something that isn't supported, and start having to interop direct with Windows, things get much more ugly. Unfortunately this happens as quite a lot, whenever you decide you want to do something Microsoft didn't really plan for, like writing toolbars.

I don't think I'd want to write production software to be distributed to large numbers of people using .Net. There are certain issues like having to rely on people having the framework installed (and still not everyone does, and it's a very large download), and slow startup times on systems where you don't have much control. WPF (the new XML-based forms system introduced in .Net 3) is absolutely hideous for startup time.

Re:I like Mono, but... (1)

Weedlekin (836313) | about 6 years ago | (#25282921)

"How much decent Net software is there out there anyway?"

There's very little if anything for desktops. As is the case with java, most .NET programming jobs are for server-side stuff, with much of that being ASP.NET (i.e. web apps).

"Is it all in-house so we never see it?"

There is indeed a lot of in-house stuff, but it's generally even worse than what you see from ISVs.

"I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it."

That's because a lot of it is written by VB programmers who (a) aren't vastly experienced with VB.NET, and (b) dislike what they have learned because it requires more effort to produce slower, uglier, and bulkier software.

NB: I'm not a VB programmer, but I know several, so I'm not speaking from experience, but repeating what I've been told.

Re:I like Mono, but... (4, Insightful)

telchine (719345) | about 6 years ago | (#25283067)

Seriously though, what applications are using Net 3.5 instead of all the stuff that can only run with Net 1.0 or Net 2.0?

A lot of my applications use LINQ (.Net 3.5). I wouldn't really like to go back to SQL.

Sure you can manipulate databases with SQL. You can also cross the atlantic in a steam boat. However, I'd prefer to go by plane.

Re:I like Mono, but... (1)

telchine (719345) | about 6 years ago | (#25283097)

How much decent Net software is there out there anyway? Is it all in-house so we never see it? I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it.

It's not really very practical to use for writing the kind of applications that you want to distribute. Having to have the .Net Framework installed is a serious barrier to the user. Java is in the same boat as the user needs to also install the VM.

Like Java, .Net seems to have found its home in in-house development and with web apps.

Re:I like Mono, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25283027)

Is this a fashion thing? How many of you have 3.0 or 3.5 .net installed? I have - just to install the C++ compiler. In numerical benchmarks, Java is not far behind from C++, and C# is closing in to Java. However, applications written in C# could use a lot more disk space AND memory, yet they can be dog slow.

C++ and C is still important: more choices in optimizations, less memory foot-print, disk space requirement, etc. Sure, you can create an application of 30K bytes, then it will not run until you download 25M of .net 1.x, or 120M of .net 2.0. Now you are asking to download 350M .net 3.x? This requirement is not going down anytime soon.

If you develop with C or C++, you have more control over the applications and its associated libraries. With .net, you cannot be sure if your customers environment is updated or fully patched.

Whenever I see some applications that requires an extra 350M download just to run it, I just hit the back button.

It's a trap, get an axe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282271)

Microsoft: you shall never possess the necronomicon!

Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (5, Interesting)

Toreo asesino (951231) | about 6 years ago | (#25282273)

Most of it anyway; but crucially, LINQ.

The bits missing (Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation) aren't as crucial in my personal opinion; they are just nice toys you aren't going to miss if you've never had them before.

LINQ however is a killer feature IMO; I'm glad to see that's now available on mono.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (0, Flamebait)

SuperDre (982372) | about 6 years ago | (#25282367)

what nonsense, using LINQ is only a good way to get bad performance out of your program, LINQ is for lazy programmers... just ditch LINQ for the time being...

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (2, Insightful)

Xabraxas (654195) | about 6 years ago | (#25282557)

Isn't the phrase "lazy programmer" a little redundant.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (2, Interesting)

Westley (99238) | about 6 years ago | (#25282793)

Can I ask how much experience you actually have of LINQ, and which aspects of it (which providers etc)? Which area of performance are you talking about?

I have a certain amount of LINQ experience, and all I see is it making me more productive, with little to no performance hit. (Yes, separating out projection from filtering etc is a little more expensive than hardcoding it all in one foreach statement, but not significantly - and the resulting code is *much* cleaner.)

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (1)

Fred_A (10934) | about 6 years ago | (#25282393)

So now what ? Does that mean apps like Paint.Net can be ported or is there still some crucial stuff missing ?

Most stuff seems to rely on some core Windows only component so I'm still not sure what the point of Mono is.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | about 6 years ago | (#25282445)

Paint.NET is a special case; a hideous whack of code is native and being used via interop.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (3, Interesting)

Kentaree (1078787) | about 6 years ago | (#25282601)

I wonder if it'd be possible to get Mono and Wine to work together and get Paint.NET to work, does Mono support interop to run non-managed code?

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25283053)

Paint.NET is a special case; a hideous whack of code is native

so they should call it Paint.Not? :)

(disclaimer: I like Paint.net, its rather good)(normal broadcast now continues)

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 years ago | (#25282565)

I'm running a geophysics package that uses Net via mono on an 8 CPU machine that I doubt MS Windows could install on let alone run well. Unfortunately the package costs more per seat than a few of those 8 CPU machines and has enough rough edges to look like 1990s VB shareware - but it does save time to run it.

The only catch was putting in a single link where mono (or perhaps the app in some weird cross platform way) was explicitly looking for a paticular library version I didn't have even though it isn't going to use it. The real catch I suppose is that software that checks if you have a valid licence is designed to make things horribly difficult for the honest and I wish developers would abandon such regularly crashing stupidity.

Personally I'm not really sure what the point of Net is but at least we can run it across platforms now.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282973)

Paint.NET can be compiled. As long as P/Invoke things are disabled.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (5, Insightful)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 6 years ago | (#25282403)

The bits missing (Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation) aren't as crucial in my personal opinion; they are just nice toys you aren't going to miss if you've never had them before.

It is crucial in the moment when any programmer use them and application stop working on any non-Windows platform. It is also very difficult, if not improssible, to track VM incompatibilities when main developer (MS) is not interested in 100% compatibility at all. For me, as enterprise application developer, these are show stoppers. Luckily, there is Java and Sun Hotspot, which solves all this.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (4, Interesting)

uberjack (1311219) | about 6 years ago | (#25282427)

Most of it anyway; but crucially, LINQ.

The bits missing (Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation) aren't as crucial in my personal opinion; they are just nice toys you aren't going to miss if you've never had them before.

LINQ however is a killer feature IMO; I'm glad to see that's now available on mono.

Personally, I find LINQ's complete throwing away of proper syntax annoying. Most .net developers I know have no idea that LINQ is simply syntactic sugar, and that the whole thing can be implemented by a bunch of method calls that make a lot more sense, from a structural standpoint. This is the problem I have with Microsoft's technologies in general (think ASP.net's asinine oversimplification of the http protocol) - instead of improving new programmers' understanding of existing technology, they re-warp the programmers' heads around their idea of how the technology should be implemented.

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282599)

It seems that you are the one who have no idea. Linq is not just the query syntax, but the whole technology. Notice how lists suddenly have a lot of new functions after you include the linq namespace?

You can use linq from any .net language without ever using the linq query language. Linq is a library, combined with a lot of language enhancements (type inference, mixins are the primary ones).

Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 (1)

uberjack (1311219) | about 6 years ago | (#25282805)

You might want to double-check what you know. I can do exactly what LINQ does without ever referencing the "Linq" library, by simply using System.Collections and Collections.Generic. The Linq library is what adds the "syntactic sugar". Try it and see.

IDE (1)

cpt_koloth (688593) | about 6 years ago | (#25282301)

A question: Is there a functional IDE for Mono, for us who don't want gnome or even gnome libs on our System?

Re:IDE (5, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | about 6 years ago | (#25282343)

"A question: Is there a functional IDE for Mono, for us who don't want gnome or even gnome libs on our System?"

Um, what? You'll get gnome cooties?

Monodevelop is a good IDE, and I don't think having GTK and related libs installed is going to steal your masculinity or anything.

Re:IDE (1)

cpt_koloth (688593) | about 6 years ago | (#25282377)

Well I use Slackware and i prefer to stick to standard packages so 3rd party gnome is out of the question (I had a nightmare experience with Dropline a few months ago)...

Re:IDE (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | about 6 years ago | (#25282451)

Yeah, it's a bitch trying to develop .net apps on my Amiga. I wish developers would stop assuming I'm using a Linux distro with features. Assholes.

Might not be a nightmare, but it probably is (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | about 6 years ago | (#25282505)

You should be able to just get the GTK headers and libs and compile it. Patt dropped Gnome from Slackware for this very reason - it's a horribly complicated package to get right.

I could try to roll you a tgz later today. Are you running 12.0 proper? You'll have to drop some gtk libs in /usr/local/lib, but I can throw them in the package so you can do a removepkg to remove the app and libs in one fell swoop.

Re:IDE (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | about 6 years ago | (#25282425)

What about something like jedit (I know it's a java app!) or kdevelop?

I use jedit at work and it extremely configurable, you can add add the mono compiler as a menu item. (e.g. write your source code in the ide and easily compile it by selecting your custom menu item).

Kdevelop is built upon the QT and KDE libraries, I've used it before and is just as "customisable" as jedit.

However, if you don't have the gnome libraries (do you also mean gtk too?) then developing mono desktop apps may be problematic for you (the "gui" libraries in mono depend on gtk being installed)

On the other hand, if your developing console-type applications then the desktop aspect of mono is irrelevant and using any ide would be o.k.

Re:IDE (1)

aauu (46157) | about 6 years ago | (#25282435)

VIM, Make and SSH/terminal windows. All the GUI IDEs do is run the command line stuff in the background. Of course it might be desirable to run X if your writing gui end user applications. Mono will connect to Oracle and SQL Server out of the box (perl and java do not) and the MySql.Data.dll binary from windows works fine. I have run third party libraries by using the same .dll file in windows and *nix. I write back end server applications so there is no motivation for me to run X on *nix. Subversion for version control gives you an identcal command line interface on *nix and windows. What is the value of a GUI? Do you code with different size fonts? All drag and drop symbols?

Re:IDE (1)

VoidCrow (836595) | about 6 years ago | (#25282497)

All the operating system does is hide all accesses to the hardware behind device drivers interfaces, and steal valuable cpu time by wrapping it in concepts like 'tasks' and a GUI. Quiche eaters.

we care not (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282309)

Got more important things to do.

Why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282471)

I don't want Mono, and any self respecting programmer . My thoughts on Mono and it's introduction to Linux are here.
.

Portability depends on more than the platform (4, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | about 6 years ago | (#25282473)

Good luck porting over LoadDLL("C:\\windows\\system32\\mylib.dll");.

The existence of a working mono is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, for porting an application. Whether that condition is fulfilled and to what degree, I'll leave up to you to discuss.

Portability comes from being largely independent of the differences between the platform you want to port from and the one you want to port to. Good portability engineering consists of gathering all the platform-specific bits into one unit with a uniform interface, such that it's easy to write platform-specific modules for all the platforms you want to support; then, make sure to test on all your target platforms.

For a good piece of engineering, see Simon Tatham's puzzle collection (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/). To see the importance of testing on all your target platforms, see the state of synergy on the Mac (http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ -- "The Mac OS X port is incomplete [...]"). To see the importance of isolating your platform dependence, see any code that makes liberal use of fork and ioctl everywhere [sorry, I can't name an example].

Also, good portability engineering done up front is much less work (i.e. cheaper for your employer) than when the project is already deployed on windows only.

-- Jonas K

Re:Portability depends on more than the platform (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 6 years ago | (#25282925)

muhttpd [inglorion.net] uses fork, yet it works on Windows, thanks to the excellent work of the Cygwin [cygwin.com] project (at least earlier versions of muhttpd worked under Cygwin; I haven't tested recently).

F[rosT pist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282479)

"Redmont, we got a strategy problem !" (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282527)

If mono would be full .net compatible (say "if"), this would mean, people be allowed to move their Windows .net enterprise application from Windows to Linux.

Be sure, that MS will never let that to happen ! This is not anything like MS beein BAD or things like technologically it is not feasibile ... just marketshares and money. An enterprise do care about their money and investment : so do their shareholders.

Alright, think of this. MS had runaway from Java when they though "we can no control this and make it platform dependent", thus "it's too much of a risk, let's trash VisualJ++, jview and the wfc's".

What did they do instead ? They build their own "Java platform" version. But one they can control and make sure it will never be used to endanger their assets.

Crossplatform sounds always good to people ears, so they also had to make sure the platform is portable to some reasonable level (money, could helps there to delegate to third party), but also that "it will always works best on Windows".

Money get back to its dady ;-)

Whatever Corel, Icaza & al claim, the only platform that MS cares is Windows. If MS realy cares about non Windows running .net framework, then would have at least build a compatibility test kit or GPLed the framework already, isn't it ?

Seriously, appart from the marketing hype, what is the chance a real life corporate enterprise applications build using .net migrate without problem from Windows to Linux ? IMHO, it is the same chance people migrated cobol application to Java with a single click: very little. Better to have full managed code, better to have mono supported API, better to use code used often, etc.

By the way, what is the long term for .net ? think of MS DNA ... at one point of time it will no more fit in MS grand-strategy and be deprecated by their master. Just because, beeing successfull would it has the potential to kill MS milking cow ! You can even anticipate, it will be some kind of "embrace and extend" thing that they really loves. Something that will let non Windows .net user in the middle of the road.

At first, MS has realized by pushing .net, a Java engeneer can move to a C# project ... But they do not have realized that by doing this a whole new generation has already become "Java-minded".
They now master Object, GC, persistence, etc and do not want to get back. If you are a .net developper, thing of this : do you like accessign to non-managed "pre .net" APIs ? does it sound modern to you ? easy to use ? simple ?

Look around, years back, it was .net "everywhere" ... now, seriously, the suffix has been deprecated. This means that even MS top strategists shows little interest for .net: less bankable than others MS assets + threat to other assets = let's not put lots of things on this (but some little to try to slow down opponents).

Anyhow, things are evolving, Linux is becoming ubiquiteous, Java is becoming ubiquiteous ... and those two are the best MS nightmare. How to kill them ? I dont think any strategist has an idea at redmont (or at least one that does not imply suicide of one of their assets).

Time will show ...

Rgs,
TM

The inevitable Java vs Mono (3, Interesting)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | about 6 years ago | (#25282543)

As a Programmer I am really torn between Java and Mono!

Both platforms solve the same problem but which one shall I commit to?

Do I install and run both platforms on my PC?
Surely running both platforms at the same time *must* be detrimental to my PC's performance (e.g. memory usage and cpu time executing both VMs)!

I also cannot afford the time to learn both platforms properly!

It is unfortunately a question of politics.
Java is now open-sourced and offically sanctioned.
Mono is the "unauthorised"(by Microsoft) port of .net technology and patents are a concern.

Both platforms have great software written for them (e.g. banshee, jedit, monodevelop, eclipse and netbeans) and patents are not really a concern to me because I live in the UK (software patents do not apply...YET!).

It is unfortunate that the mono is so closely associated with Windows, if the mono team had created/implemented a completely new set of cross-platform libraries (that bore no relation to Microsoft's framework) it would be more accepted.

I really like mono - the work that has been done is nothing short of amazing but the constant catch-up with Microsoft is a concern.

Java is widespread in mobile phones and most modern desktops unfortunatly for me it is not available on my PDA (ipaq 2210).

I am really stuck with this! :(

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono (0, Troll)

HRbnjR (12398) | about 6 years ago | (#25282645)

I am a fan of Free Software and the *freedom* I get from using it.

If you look at Java vs .NET in a Linux world, against a Free Software background, I think it quickly becomes obvious which one comes closer to sharing the Free Software ideals/benefits/mindset and which one doesn't. Mono may be a free implementation, but the platform they are emulating is as proprietary as ever.

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | about 6 years ago | (#25282809)

You make an excellent point!

If I think in technical/geeky terms I lean towards mono because it's an "evolution" of the technology (it is also shiny and newer than Java!) also the .net compact framework is on my PDA.

When I think of the Linux "world" and freedom of software then Java is the *overwhelming* choice, Java is also installed in most mobile phones, not to mention the development tools are far maturer than something like monodevelop and fully functional (unlike Visual Studio Express).

As much as I like mono based on your comments Java is the way forward!

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282943)

not to mention the new scripting capabilities built in in java 6 and which should shine in java 7 allow for seamless integration with python, javascript and whatever language you could come up, allowing a whole new degree of flexibility in the development cycle.

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282909)

> Both platforms solve the same problem but which one shall I commit to?

Which problem do you think they solve? Portability? At least for Gui stuff Mono sure does not solve anything, I have yet to find even a single WinForms app that works right with it, and Gtk# exists only for .Net 1.0 so you'd have to run Mono instead of .Net on Windows.
In my view, C, Gtk, Qt, wxWidgets, any of those solve the "cross-platform" problem better than Mono/.Net, and even Java is not much better unless you rely on largely clueless developers or insist on using VisualStudio.
I haven't tried much myself but if you want "cross platform no matter how clueless and malicious the developers are" Python probably comes closest.

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 6 years ago | (#25283017)

``It is unfortunate that the mono is so closely associated with Windows, if the mono team had created/implemented a
completely new set of cross-platform libraries (that bore no relation to Microsoft's framework) it would be more accepted.''

But then they would just have done [ruby-lang.org] what [inria.fr] various [perl.org] others [php.net] have [python.org] already [gnu.org] done [gnu.org] , wouldn't [wikipedia.org] they [boost.org] ?

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 6 years ago | (#25283075)

The answer is easy. Learn C++.

I'll get my coat....

The real .NET (4, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 6 years ago | (#25282547)

I wish the real .NET could be installed on Wine. Not because I like .NET, but because I want to run those programs that people make in .NET these days, in Wine just like I can do with regular programs. If Wine wants to work like Windows, it should also be possible to install the real .NET on it just like you can do on the real Windows. They should try to make it work just as well as they did with MS Office. Then it would become possible to run so much more programs in Wine without problems and without having to reboot to Windows!

Re:The real .NET (5, Informative)

kazade84 (1078337) | about 6 years ago | (#25282785)

Download winetricks [winehq.org] then run:

sh winetricks dotnet11 dotnet20

Bingo. .NET under wine.

And why not just use Java? (4, Insightful)

HRbnjR (12398) | about 6 years ago | (#25282597)

The .NET platform and C# looks like decent enough technology, but I just don't think it's compelling enough to prompt a switch from Java.

With these back-room Novell/MS deals, the patent situation around Mono continues to be as clear as mud, and with Java I get it all under the GPL (with a clear and written patent grant) right from the source. Not to mention Sun's process for advancing the platform (JCP), while not perfect, is far more open and community driven, catering to much wider variety of vendors and platforms than Microsoft.

With Eclipse and Netbeans, the Java tool support on Linux is fantastic as well. With RedHat and JBoss, the server platform is also well supported on Linux.

So, yeah, nice work, but no thanks.

Re:And why not just use Java? (3, Insightful)

arotenbe (1203922) | about 6 years ago | (#25282751)

I use Java as well, and I think that Eclipse is a better IDE than Visual Studio, but there are a couple reasons for using .NET:

  • A better language. C# is, for all intents and purposes, Java with more syntactic sugar. It makes it about a hundred times easier to write event-driven programs.
  • A library that actually makes sense. Java was designed by committee, and it shows. Most of the problems in the .NET framework ultimately stem from having to run on Windows; the cross-platform parts are comparatively clean.
  • No checked exceptions. Seriously.

Re:And why not just use Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282863)

"A library that actually makes sense. Java was designed by committee, and it shows. Most of the problems in the .NET framework ultimately stem from having to run on Windows; the cross-platform parts are comparatively clean."

But what you call the clean cross platform part is so small dude. You can't even make a decent GUI without using P/Invoke unless all you do is program like a Visual Basic (pre-dotnet era) programmer because the WinForms are lacking a lot of the features found in the win32 GUI APIs. So dotnet and Mono have nothing that can compete with either Java Swing or Java SWT.
Then there's the lacking multimedia API. The official .net sound API can only do stuff on .wav files, not even work with MIDI. For advanced stuff you still have to use P/Invoke again.
The 2D graphics API is ok but again there is no crossplatform 3D library that has been used in production like Java JOGL. The TAO framework still has to prove itself.

The pure managed .net libraries are lacking too much stuff to be usable in a crossplatform way. True .net windows programmers WILL always use P/Invoke while the Java platform has libraries for nearly everything you could care for and has no need for native code. Fuck you can even write an app that works with SVG stuff in pure java with Apache Batik.

Re:And why not just use Java? (1)

arotenbe (1203922) | about 6 years ago | (#25283113)

You can't even make a decent GUI without using P/Invoke unless all you do is program like a Visual Basic (pre-dotnet era) programmer because the WinForms are lacking a lot of the features found in the win32 GUI APIs.

You do know that .NET can use widget libraries other than Windows Forms, right? I mean, most Java apps with GUIs are written in SWT nowadays, not Swing.

True .net windows programmers WILL always use P/Invoke while the Java platform has libraries for nearly everything you could care for and has no need for native code.

.NET has plenty of libraries for that type of thing. Specifically, they wrap P/Invoke. The Java libraries do that too, they just have separate implementations on every platform.

Ok so I didn't RTFA but one question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25282723)

Have they now released it so that M$ cant come along and pull the plug using Patents they hold or via Copyright/DMCA junk?

Just asking

Mostly P/Invoke (2, Interesting)

rdnetto (955205) | about 6 years ago | (#25282777)

I'm guessing that 40% of those incompatible apps are due to code which references Win32 libraries via P/Invoke. Seriously, almost no-one is developing for .NET 3.x. Most apps are written for 2.0, which is included with XP SP2 and Vista, but 3.5 is a 300MB download, so almost no-one has it. Microsoft had to release a client-only subset version of it which is cut down, and its around 30 MB, but it'll cause a lot of confusion (RE: versioning), and I don't think it supports LINQ.

Great but... (1)

squoozer (730327) | about 6 years ago | (#25282789)

If you were setting out to write a serious new web application and cross platform was a real requirement why not just use Java? If your requirements are smaller there are plenty of other languages that offer cross platform deployment that are up to date on all platforms.

It's great to see this project continuing to develop but it's going to be like Blackdown Java - a niche product at best. The only saving grace is that, unlike with Java, you can't actually run the MS VM on Linux (AFAIK).

.NET break too much (2, Informative)

Tei (520358) | about 6 years ago | (#25282791)

"InternetNews points out that only about half of the .NET apps out there will work on Mono 2.0"

On my Windows XP computer half the .NET applications break anyway.

I've had great experience with Mono (1)

tondrej (835373) | about 6 years ago | (#25282857)

trying to codesign large Windows executables. At the time their Authenticode tool was better than Microsoft's own [blogspot.com] .

Platform vs language (2, Interesting)

sentientbrendan (316150) | about 6 years ago | (#25282891)

I think the mono project was started primarily because of interest in the C# language, as it compares favorably to java, fixing many of Java's flaws.

Sadly while the C# language may be in many ways stronger than Java, the platform is much weaker. Realistically, the reason Java was so successful was that there were high quality VM and classpath implementations on all platforms. Yet, Microsoft didn't seem to learn this lesson from Java, and instead relied on third parties, who can't possibly maintain parity with Microsoft .NET. Thus, .NET will always be a second class citizen on Linux, and always a poor choice compared to Java.

As much as I like C#, it's a foolish choice to write Linux apps in .NET in the same way that it is foolish to write them in win32. It will always be a second rate platform on Linux, so long as the people controlling the standard have no interest in doing the work to making the framework work across platforms.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?