De Icaza Responds on Mono and GNOME

miguel writes: "Here is my reply to the various questions on Mono, the future of GNOME and the Register statements." Linux Today has a copy of the email as well.

Comments

Re:Alan Cox Says It Best

[sab39]

Miguel himself responded to this point:

"There is the issue that we might not be able to keep up (right
now, we dont, as .NET Framework 1.0 is already out there, and we
are, well still underway). Also, theoretically there is the risk
of a given API being unimplementable on Unix.

Even if that is the case, we still win, because we would get
this nice programming environment, that althought might not end up
being 100% .NET Framework compatible, it would still be an
improvement and would still help us move forward. So we can reuse
all the research and development done by Microsoft on these ideas,
and use as much as we can."

This applies just as much to being intentionally broken by Microsoft as it does to them simply outpacing Mono's development.

Re:The crux of his argument

[miguel]

You do raise an interesting point. Some features are not available to all languages (for example, a LISP closure definition).

But there is a large subset that is. This subset is encapsulated in the Common Language Specification (CLS) which differentiates between:

* Consumer languages.
* Provider languages.
* Consumer/Provider languages.

You can find the details here:

here

Miguel

Re:I hate to be a dick, but.

[jonabbey]

Of course, with Mono you get all that neat stuff while still being able to code in _whatever_ language(s) you want and have it work transparently and consistently.

Whatever language you like so long as its semantics and runtime behavior have been massaged to work with the CLR.

Really, the CLI/CLR is just like the Jave byte codes and JVM, except that CLR's is a bit less strict about security and in that the CLR's support for 'unmanaged' code allows for cleaner support of native machine code than does Java's JNI interface. It's a convenience thing, much as Visual C++'s helpful COM automation wizards are a convenience thing.

The biggest difference between Java and the .NET framework is that Java's bytecodes and VM are a bit more paranoid about things like security, and that Java is designed with portability as a first order concern. .NET code will probably never be as portable as Java, precisely because it is designed to make it super easy to interface with operating system level code. Java is designed to make it a pain to use any code that isn't itself portable.

Re:Advantages of C# over Java

[bnenning]

Sun proved, when they sued Microsoft, that they don't want Java-the-language being used to generate code to run anywhere but inside Java-the-VM or have direct access to anything but the Java classes.

Not true at all. Look at Apple's Cocoa framework, which allows you to write native Mac OS X applications in Java. Sun has no problem with that, because Mac OS X also includes the 100% compatible pure Java envrionment. Sun sued Microsoft not because MS added features, but because they deliberately introduced incompatibilities in the core Java classes.

Re:Sure, and Sun's your best friend? Hardly.

[Glock27]

Re-read your comment about the evils of Microsoft and apply the same argument to Sun and Java. What is stopping Sun from charging huge fees for J2EE libraries? Nothing. Just because they are not presently doing it does not mean they will not in the future as their hardware revenue dwindles in light of the x86 chip's performance/price ratio.

Sun does charge fees for J2EE. What made you think otherwise? What makes you think Microsoft couldn't charge huge fees for Windows XP server? (Oh yeah they do...)

Remember - it was Sun that renegged on ISO and EMCA standardization - not Microsoft.

Right, except it wasn't "not Microsoft" it was "because of Microsoft".

Sun has always stated it won't opposed clones (including open source clones) of Java, as long as they aren't called "Java". Microsoft's Java escapades were completely different - it licensed Java from Sun then proceeded to release "embrace and extend" enhancements.

Sun's "Java Community Process" is a complete sham and everybody knows it. Sun's vote is the only one that matters.

This ignorant statement simply shows that you have no clue about the JCP. Do a little research.

Why are you posting anonymously anyhow...? ;-)

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!