Slashdot Mirror


Mono and .NET - An Interview

all-of-the-dot writes "Would you use an open-source implementation of the .NET Framework? Ximian's Mono project enables you to build .NET apps that run on Linux and Unix as well as Windows. Check out the story from .NET Magazine's interview with Miguel de Icaza, Ximian cofounder and CTO" Added to which, AirLace writes "The Mono project has just achieved full self-hosting on Linux. While the C# compiler, itself written in C#, has been able to compile itself since March, Mono can now compile its own complete set of class libraries too. This announcement closely follows the release of the Phonic media player, the first .NET application for the GNOME desktop."

15 of 583 comments (clear)

  1. What are the chances for survival!? by goldenfield · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We all know how MS feels about non-MS operating systems. We all know they're using .NET as a way to lock people into Windows servers and desktops. There's NO WAY they're gonna hang out and let poor Linux play in their reindeer games.

    No...they'll go ahead and change their infrastructure so that it doesn't work with open source code.

    1. Re:What are the chances for survival!? by joshsnow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They can change their infrastructure as much as they like - what they can't change is the fact that the APIs are out there, they're implemented and they're being used. That means that so long as MONO mirrors those apis, mono apps will always work with the original .NET framework.
      It's like all the old Windows 3 programs which still run on XP - Microsoft can't afford to ditch old APIs. Once .NET reaches critical mass (ie the point at which there's so much software that "changing their infrstructure" breaks code) MONO needs only be implemented to that standard and then we're all home and dry.

  2. Who else is amused... by modulus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That this "phonic" thing, built with the ultra-portable .net dealy, still only runs on linux (or at least nix-ish) machines with gtk?

    On a more serious note...

    Seriously. Where's the portability at? Will .net apps written for windows similarly only work with the "windows gui toolkit" (or whatever)?

    1. Re:Who else is amused... by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Will .net apps written for windows similarly only work with the "windows gui toolkit" (or whatever)?

      Yes, they will. As soon as the implementation of the Windows.Forms classes are implemented. That's within the scope of the project and is a big challenge, check it out here.

  3. Yes, I definitively would! by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The .Net framework is a very clean and interesting initiative. Forget Passport, forget web-services and all the other pieces and focus only on the framework and the common language runtime (that the focus of MONO) - its neat, and being able to compile code on several platforms without worrying about ports is a great achievement.

    Off course, don't use platform-specific calls (PInvoke) if you want interoperability, but almost everything else is ok.

  4. Useful technology by Jonner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am not interested in .NET because of M$'s clout, but I am somewhat interested in CLR and the standard libraries because it may be a genuinely useful technology. I'm not interested much in C#, as it appears to be quite similar to Java with some C++-like stuff, but if the promise of easy cross-language development is true, that is interesting. Of course, that is possible with a JVM and standard Java libraries, but the CLR may be superior in that respect. Let's wait and see.

  5. What about Dot-GNU? by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 3, Interesting


    On a side note, I would like to see Ximian or the GNU Foundation talking at how MONO and DOT-GNU differ on purpose or how they are similar.

    Frankly, they seem to have the same end goal, and I'm afraid this is a duplicate effort that would be better off if they joined forces.

    Dot-GNU: http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/index.html

  6. Re:It's no use to resist .NET.... by Restil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We're playing the wrong game here. We need to have microsoft constantly chasing after US to keep up to date with the existing "standards", not the other way around. The open source community as a whole needs to be frontlining new standards. If we can keep Microsoft and other evil empires constantly playing catchup, it will severely limit the damage they can do overall. Sure, they'll play the embrace and extend game, but only if we give them enough time to do so.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  7. Qt#: KDE has Mono bindings in cvs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, that does not seem a wise choice in light of this: http://qtcsharp.sourceforge.net and this: http://developer.kde.org/language-bindings/qtcshar p/index.html

    You can find these bindings in KDE's cvs for quite sometime. ;-)

    Cheers!

  8. Making the interviewers' point by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    About some people using a technology out of religion rather than merit.

    This interview is a very interesting interview in part because it seems to indicate that Mono is a good way of getting Windows developers into Open Source software development-- something that Microsoft has generally been pretty successful at preventing. I have generally likes what I have seen in .NET but I tend to see it as an exit strategy from the OS market (in a world where the OS market is saturating in the key markets in the developed world). This is a real reason that open source, being more flexible in its development pace (and giving customers what they need through community effort rather than centralized marketing). So, I wish Mono the best.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  9. We're talking about the platform not the language by alext · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This doesn't really add up to much.

    Only about 120 classes of the 1200 in the Dotnet platform are standardized as part of the C Sharp language, so standardization offers little protection if your application uses a GUI (Windows Forms, Web Forms) or a database (ADO Dotnet). Not only are these libraries not standardized, they are likely to be protected by patents.

    Sun does not have the same room for manoeuvre as MS since the JCP has other powerful participants. In practice, there have been few ownership/legal issues in developing Open Source versions of the JVM - see the Kawa web site for a list of these. Their complaints revolve around issues such as access to the test suites - ultimately Sun just owns the Java name, not all the implementations.

  10. Re:A very simple analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I second that whole heartedly. And holy crap, the Visual Studio.NET is one kickass IDE. You can do development in 4 different languages within one project, can call routines between languages, and the debugger can step through the different code like nobody's business! I'm pretty sure no IDE even comes close (although Netbeans is pretty cool).

  11. Rundown: why this GPL programmer didn't choose NET by afflatus_com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look at the toolsets, the final contenders I looked at for a cross-platform GUI toolkit were: .NET
    Trolltech Qt
    GTK
    Delphi/Kylix
    wxWindows .NET:
    -Poor history of MSW undocumented APIs.
    -Poor history of MSW trying to break other toolsets not blessed by the company.
    -Poor history of MSW once actually finishing a piece of software's features (eg Office) trying to find other ways to pinch money off people.
    -Poor history towards GPL software.

    Qt:
    -A strong contender: good documentation, tools.
    -Lost out because they say the Windows version requires a purchased copy of Visual C++ to do any compiling with it.
    -Emulates widgets instead of using native.

    GTK (1.2 back then, I can't comment on 2.0):
    -Very free.
    -A lot of component scattered libraries makes documentation difficult.
    -Sometimes higher level widgets don't exist: need to make them from scratch using the window primitives.
    -MSW port is a bit rough.

    Delphi/Kylix:
    -Easy to use, a company respected by me that makes good software.
    -No Mac available.
    -Proprietary, liable to not be maintained if company goes under.
    -Free version is nagware under Linux, I believe their documentation said.

    wxWindows:
    -Works out of the box, now.
    -A single project can be compiled for MSW, GTK, OSX and less commons like X11 embedded.
    -Good documentation, sample code, etc.
    -Core team is *very* accepting to new features and sharper code.
    -Native widgets always used, where they exist makes a proper look and feel for an application.
    -The open library in unencumbered by a company that needs to ship new versions of tools or the library.
    -Fast: native compiles so no runtimes needed.
    -The C++ is designed to by truly compatible with almost any compiler, toolset, not ones blessed by one certain company.
    -Well tested (10 years).
    -Tools and library are no cost, (or nagware). Free compilers exist on all supported platforms.

    wxWindows was the one that was selected, and now 10 months into the project, I am very satisfied with the results from that toolkit choice.

    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
  12. Re:makes me nervous by nihilogos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and I think C# is infinitely better than C++ (then again, what isn't...). I'm looking forward to playing with C# on my Linux machine.

    Language X > Language Y statements are some of the most pointless ever made. Suppose you wanted to write an accelerated 3d game? Suppose you wanted to do some numerical physics?

    And you might be waiting a while for C# on your linux machine. You can still get java which does the same stuff however.

    --
    :wq
  13. Re:It's no use to resist .NET.... by Clockwurk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    - Can you name a single "technology" MS has announced recently that *nix hasn't had for years (if not decades)?

    DirectX

    Optical Mice

    Scroll Wheel on Mouse (I think this was theirs)

    Back and Forwards Net buttons on Mice

    The Windows key :-P