Slashdot Mirror


Portable.NET Now 100% Free Software

rhysweatherley writes "Finally after months of hard work and bucket loads of caffeine, the DotGNU community has finally got Portable.NET to the point of building our C# libraries on many Free Software platforms with our own C# compiler. This is a big deal! Portable.NET is now 100% pure Free Software, with no dependencies on third party C# tools. The compiler, which is written in C, bootstraps off gcc, so there are no icky 'how to compile the compiler' problems. And it's fast! The DotGNU team consists of lots of contributors, many of whom are coincidentially named 'Rhys Weatherley,' but this wouldn't have been possible without the support of the DotGNU community, especially the Weekend Warriors. .NET is not the only thing we are doing. We're playing around with JVM and Parrot (of perl6 fame) backends to the compiler. And we have a C compiler front-end that generates pure bytecode apps that can run on any decent CIL implementation (Portable.NET, Mono, etc). We are about 95% of the way towards our first milestone of an ECMA-compatible C# implementation. There are lots of things still to be done in the low-level C# libraries, runtime engine, and the compiler. So, if you have some time on your hands, and like messing with languages and stuff, like yours truly ... have look and maybe have some fun!"

18 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. .NET for Linux by RebelTycoon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Time to re-evaluate... It might be good afterall...

    So confused... Is it weekends that we like MS, or just Saturdays, or just 6-7pm EST...

    Damn it...

    1. Re:.NET for Linux by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 5, Funny

      A lot of their ideas are actually not that bad

      A lot of their ideas are actually someone else's.

    2. Re:.NET for Linux by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Microsoft hasn't been all that good at innovating. [vcnet.com]

      And Linux would be what? a trully innovative implementation of a 30 year old operating system using the same coding techniques.

      The whole industry is the same. Lotus didn't invent the spreadsheet, Oracle didn't invent SQL, Apple didn't invent the windows and mouse GUI, Linus didn't invent UNIX. Most of the ideas in UNIX are taken from Multics.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. DotGnu and Mono by fizz-beyond · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So how do the two projects, DotGnu and Mono compare? I could be way off base here, but it seems to me like yet another of the great OSS wars. You know, vi and emacs, kde and gnome, etc.

    Can someone please tell me I'm wrong and explain why?

    --
    Blink
    1. Re:DotGnu and Mono by manyoso · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mono's compiler is written in C#. Mono has a fast JIT. Mono's libraries include preliminary versions of Microsoft.NET libraries (see non-ECMA) like System.Windows.Forms and support for ASP.NET and ADO.NET. Mono is a joint project of Ximian and the larger community. Mono's commercial nature also limits community participation.

      DotGNU is a GNU project and has a CLR/.NET environment sub-project called Portable.NET. Some of the key differences with Portable.NET and Mono are:

      PNet has a C# compiler written in C that is very fast, but not as complete. As a consequence it does not suffer from bootstrapping problems.

      PNet's compiler architecture is meant to provide great support for new CIL language compilers. Currently, cscc (that's the IL compiler suite) supports compiling C and C# to CIL with other languages on the way. It can also compile a subset of C# to the JVM.

      PNet only has an interpreter called ilrun (no JIT) at this time. PNet's libraries are not as far along, but one of the goals is complete ECMA compatibility while Mono's goal is to track Microsoft.NET as
      closely as possible. PNet is also talking with the Perl/Parrot folks about supporting C# on the next generation Perl runtime.

    2. Re:DotGnu and Mono by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 5, Funny
      Meh, gimme my ed ;)
      [dave@tc11 dave]$ touch my_file
      [dave@tc11 dave]$ ed my_file
      0
      a
      Ed rocks!!!
      Ed combines ease of use and fuctionality in one program!
      It rules!
      .
      2
      Ed combines ease of use and fuctionality in one program!
      s/fuctionality/functionality/
      2
      Ed combines ease of use and functionality in one program!
      w
      80
      q
      [dave@tc11 dave]$
      </sarcasm>

      (BTW, someone posted the source for a great clone of ed, indistiguishable from the standard version for normal users on everything2.com:
      int main( void )
      {
      char *strin;
      for(;;)
      {
      printf( "- " );
      scanf( "%s", strin );
      printf( "?\n" );
      }
      }
      Oh crap, I'm really off-topic here...
  3. Re:objective analysis by manyoso · · Score: 5, Informative

    You should have a look at #Develop. I really like it and it is Free Software too :-)

    http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/default .a sp

  4. Re:Never thought this day would come by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I'm not sure why so many man months were spent trying to hook into .NET. Couldn't we have spent more time refining the applications, utilities, and system code that we already have rather than wasting time extending the Microsoft monopoly?"

    Alternative C# compilers have the potential to undermine rather than extend the MS monopoly, simply because they are an alternative source for a C# platform.

    The real trick would be getting C# programmers in the habit of targeting just the ECMA standard rather than the standard + MS lock-in extensions.

  5. Hmmmm by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess I have some rather severe misgivings about this - how useful is this going to be given the lack of the proprietary MS libraries that you are going to need to run real-world applications, or move code in a portable fashion from one machine to another?

    It's nice to have something like a this in the free software regime from a technical perspective, but is it really ever going to be anything but a little sister to the Microsoft version? Won't that reality diminish the corporate view that Linux is really just a hacker's toy, and if you want the real thing get Windows?

    Interoperability and portability are good, but interoperability really occurs at the protocol level, and portability requires libraries.
    I can see this resulting in are misleading market claims from Microsoft saying things like Lookie Here C# code is portable just like Java code !!

    One good thing that could come out of this is that it might force Sun to loosen it's grip on Java a bit so that we get more serious open JVM's etc.

  6. As a new c# programmer... by bnavarro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...(and old-time programmer):

    This is an interesing development. However: I wonder how useful this language is on non-windows platforms. Let me explain.

    You see, I have just started a new job that is heavily leveraging the .NET framework to bring an enterprise-level solution to fruition as quickly as possible. I evaluated c#, and decided that the greatest advantage c# brings to the table is rapid development through dynamic ActiveX/COM objects. That is: even though this is a compiled language, you code in it as though it was an interpreted language with ActiveX hooks. You would load any ActiveX object with a statement like
    X = new Object(params);
    and then you can immediately reference it with statements like
    Z = X.func(param);

    If you haven't written JScript, VBScript, or WSHScript, you have no idea just how amazingly powerful this is. A database connection & query takes around 4 lines of code. I was able to master in-code LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, aka Active Directory on Windoze boxes) queries in less than one day, having never touched an LDAP server in my life prior to that.

    Sadly, *NIX has never really implimented anything like COM. Each programming language still has to be manually extended in some form or another to recognise new APIs -- headers for compiled languages (and remembering to link to the libraries), or worse, "extension agent" coding for dynamic languages like Perl and Python (assuming the API code is a binary shared library). And APIs are almost never identical accross multiple languages.

    So, really: what is the need for C# on *NIX? None of my c# code that I am writing will port, because it is heavily dependent on the COM/ActiveX objects to get the real work done. Unless the .GNU project aims to bring ActiveX functionality over to *NIX, and port all of the cool ActiveX objects like ADO (Database), DOM (XML), System.DirectoryServices (LDAP), FSO (Files), etc.

    Is thes even feasible to do?

    1. Re:As a new c# programmer... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 5, Interesting


      First of all, most of the topics you mentioned are being implemented as part of the .NET Framework class libraries.
      ADO.NET is in System.Data
      XML is in System.Xml
      LDAP is an open standard that Microsoft does not own.

      Developing these class libraries is part of the Mono project.

      The language (C#) is not dependent on these vendor-specific libraries. It is quite easy to write code that will run on both Windows and Linux that does not involve any of them. Of course, it may not do what you want, but that's why Portable.NET/Mono/whoever is building the things they are.

      It's not so much "why a developer would want to write a .net program in Linux" as "how does a developer make a .net program written in Windows run on Linux".

      Just my 2 cents.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    2. Re:As a new c# programmer... by tenchiken · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are a lot of statements here that need correction.
      First of all, cOM is on it's way out. It is being replaced by the new remoting and web services architecture. The new component arch works much better and is far easier to understand then the iUnknown interface in COM. COM+ services (most notable, transactions) are still being supported, and I have no doubt that Mono will do a great job implementing these.


      Sadly, *NIX has never really implimented anything like COM.

      Not true. In fact, there is a COM implemented for UNIX called XPCOM. It's the foundation of Mozilla. In addition, COM itself is a copy of CORBA/IDL (the tools for Corba/IDL are fairly poor tho). Gnome uses CORBA, and KDE also uses a distributed object protocol. In additional, almost every language supports SOAP (including .NET) and Perl's .NET support is awesome.

      So, really: what is the need for C# on *NIX? None of my c# code that I am writing will port, because it is heavily dependent on the COM/ActiveX objects to get the real work done. Unless the .GNU project aims to bring ActiveX functionality over to *NIX, and port all of the cool ActiveX objects like ADO (Database), DOM (XML), System.DirectoryServices (LDAP), FSO (Files), etc.

      It's a really good thing that .NET rewreites all of these, and MONO is writing all of them. ADO is replacd with the much more usefull ADO.net, DOM is boosted with XSL, XSD, X** (many other XML standards), System.Directory is also bein gimplemented. FSO is replaced by the much cleaner streaming interface. Mono is implementing all of these

  7. Dangerous Because of Microsoft Patent Claims Trap by NZheretic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear that they intend to restrict competing .Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" which covers the design and inter-operation of .NET based implementations.Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard

    In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA. Sun mhas also fully opened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP).

    There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.

  8. Re:objective analysis by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, C# is a good language compared to C and all that. But then that's true of a whole bunch of languages out there. You could easily enthuse just as much about OCaml or Scheme or Ruby or Smalltalk. It doesn't seem that C# is the best language out there, just that it is 'better than C most of the time' (which isn't difficult, now that CPUs are so fast) and 'what other people seem to be using', in other words herd mentality. Which is fine - and the reason why I use Perl - but it's a mistake to think that technical merit and expressivity are something magically invented with C#, any more than the graphical user interface suddenly came along when Windows was released. Although some journalists do seem to have that idea.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  9. Re:Never thought this day would come by nzhavok · · Score: 5, Informative

    The C programming language does everything I need it to do.

    I too once was a C zealot. Then I had a job at Compaq which required me to develop in TCL which I hated at first, but eventually it opened my eyes a lot.

    These days I do 90% of my work in python, it's a bloody great language. I remember when I first started hacking C about a decade ago, I'd pump out these little programs quite quickly but anything large took a lot of time, usually debugging. I never got tierd of C but I suppose when I started programming professionally it lost a lot of its appeal.

    Anyway, I diverge.

    Python lets me create complex systems very fast. The first time I used python I worte a client/server chat program, it took about half a day to do (including the basic python tutorial). I find I don't have the time to fuck around with C anymore, I don't find the joy in hunting down bugs either (at least I hunt less in python).

    I still use C on occasion though. But only then I can't do it fast enough in python, the C code is still usually ran from python in the end.

    --

    He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
  10. Re:i can't wait ... by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 5, Interesting

    cant_get_a_good_nick wrote:

    > thinking Microsoft would have to wait until 2002
    > for a cross platform threat...

    No, they had to wait until they had a Java-a-like that they could control, and a bunch of silly collaborators to port it to anything in sight for them. Convincing the world to make regular payments for the continuing use of their products, as opposed to one charge up front would also be a big help.

    Then they can pull out the operating system Microsoft Research has been sitting on since the late 1990's. The operating system that is platform independent and runs on top of their Java replacement. The operating system that will swallow the internet into a single giant distributed network under their control, giving them the 100% monopoly of their wildest dreams. The operating system called Millennium (http://research.microsoft.com/research/sn/Millenn ium/mgoals.html).

    With per use charging, the OS itself could be given away on CD ala AOL, made available for free download, and/or automatically installed on XP machines via Windows Update (gee, I hope you didn't install XP Service Pack 1 which includes permission for them to do this and the .Net runtime). Install it, or let it install itself, and you will be making regular payments to Microsoft if you ever want to use your computer again.

    I don't think we have too long to wait. .Net is available for Windows, and well on its way for Linux and OS X. Longhorn may well be Millennium.

    Mind you, this is a giant gamble on Microsoft's part, and they are as likely to get nuked (figuratively, or even literally if a foreign country gets too annoyed with Microsoft's attempt to take over their country's computers) as they are likely to succeed. I don't think the company would survive a stunt like this, but they survived Bob, the antitrust trial's joke of a penalty phase, and Licensing 6.

    This isn't a case of poor misunderstood Microsoft, either. Why else would they codename the original Millennium JVM "Borg" (http://research.microsoft.com/research/sn/)?

    Shinoda: "The age of Millennium."
    Io: "What does that mean?"
    Shinoda: "A thousand year kingdom. It wants to create a home for itself. There is one flaw in its plan: Godzilla."
    "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)

  11. Bill and his buffoons must be laughing hard.... by zruty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This place is really getting full of M$ trolls.

    Dont you all see the pattern here? Oh geez, let's all begin developping using this so neat C$ language and let's contribute to this so great .NET$ "innovation". Bill and his buffoons must be smoking a big fat one with a smile now.... And we are even lighting it for them...

    The trap is set, and we are happily jumping on the trigger using both feet. Of course, Bill will help us out by releasing his .NET vital infrastructure source code real soon now, since we are so nice in contributing to the hype and fud ourselves. And of course, there is no way in hell Bill will pollute his own spec just for our own good and for the sake of his own pocket... Noooooo, of course not!

    During this time, Java continues to die slowly, getting fewer and fewer developpers. Don't you realize that we are contributing in digging our own grave?

    Java might be not so great, but it is still the only true alternative to this M$ obscenity.

    Please people, read the J2EE spec, the Java language spec., and go play with JBoss for a while... Then, come back, and take another look at this .NET$ aberration and you will be the one laughing, not Bill and his monkeys.

    Wake up people!

    Zruty

    --
    Zruty -- Ruler of Zrutland
  12. The Microsoft Upgrade Treadmill by mrsam · · Score: 5, Insightful
    First of all, cOM is on it's way out. It is being replaced by the new remoting and web services architecture.

    I've yet to see anyone address this point, which must be made. I'm not sure what that "remoting and web service architecture" is. I don't know. But I damn know one thing: in three or four years Microsoft will obsolete that technology, and it will be replaced with something else.

    Microsoft receives significant revenue from training armies of MCSE, using endless arrays of certifications and development programs. And, as such, they have a vested interest in keeping the revenue alive with what I call a "steady technology churn." They can't just pick an API, and go with it for the long term future. They need to force all the MCSEs back into the training camps, in order to make sure that their paper certifications do not expire.


    I dabbled with some Windows programming, many years ago. You wanna know one thing? Nothing that I've learned back then is worth today any more than a hair on my ass. VBX controls, DAOs, all of that has long been made obsolete. I've done _nix programming for quite sometime before trying the Windows waters, but I quickly figured out what was going on: that the primary occupation of a Windows developer is to provide revenue to Microsoft, in terms of continuing MSDN subscriptions, fees for an endless stream of documentation for Application Interface Of The Year.

    "Developers, developers, developers", indeed...

    So I quickly ended that short term experiment, and went back to hacking _nix. The thing about _nix -- which is 180 degrees opposite of Windows programming -- is that the skills and the knowledge that you've learned ten or fifteen years ago is still used, and is as valid today as it was back then. If you go and learn today's crop of Windows APIs, in just a couple of years all the time you've spent today would be a complete and a total waste of time, because nothing that you've learned now is relevant any more, it's been obsoleted.

    On the other hand, things like file descriptors, pipes, sockets, and other basic POSIX APIs will still be just as useful ten years from now as they are today, and as they were ten years ago. That is not to say that you won't learn anything new in the mean time. On the contrary, I have learned many great _nix technologies over the years, and I'm sure that I'll keep learning more exciting stuff in the years to come.

    The key difference is that everything that I will learn will only complement, enrich, and add to my existing, growing base of knowledge. Unlike with Windows, where its only purpose would be to replace stuff that's been obsoleted by Microsoft. As a Windows programmer, I'm in for a lifetime's worth of a struggle to keep churning through one API after another, one Microsoft language, or library, or interface API after another, all while being milked by Microsoft for the training and development fees in the mean time. As a _nix programmer, I'm in for a lifetime of enrichment and expansion of my technical skills and knowledge.