Slashdot Mirror
Mono Poises to Take Over the Linux Desktop
Edd Dumbill writes "Miguel de Icaza and the Mono team recently hosted a two day open meeting in Boston. O'Reilly have just published
my report of the meeting. Highlights include
Miguel's view that 'C is dead!' and the Mono approach
to dealing with Microsoft patents on .NET."
C is dead? Has Netcraft confirmed this?
"I once thought I had Mono for an entire year, just turned out I was really bored..."
Karma: Terrible
I realize that this is an unpopular opinion here on Slashdot, but C# is actually a pretty cool language and the .NET runtime is a promising platform. Microsoft didn't just dream this up overnight... they had a lot of smart people working a long time creating this beast.
It would certainly benefit us to learn about these technologies and leverage them, rather than to unilaterally declare them evil, wrong, stupid, etc. and just bury our heads in the sand and pretend they dont exist.
Aside from being a the primary source of Mediterranean winds, Icaza has apparently forgotten about that whole "Linux" thing that is built on that whole "UNIX" thing that was built using that whole "C" thing. I applaud his salesmanship. I deplore his view that the desktop is equivalent to the operating system.
This falls under the "I can't believe what I'm hearing" category...Mono is *not* ready as a plug in replacement for .NET, and it won't catch up before MS releases 1.2...for the foreseeable future, it's trailing behind the Windows implementation and is not likely to catch up.
I see PyGTK as a much more reasonable (and WORKING) alternative to C programming for people who want to write Gnome apps. Or GTK--, for that matter. Mono currently has crappy System.Windows.Forms support (even with Gnome#), broken serialization support, the list goes on and on.
Doesn't the Monodevelop IDE look suspiciously like Eclipse?
Are we supposed to clap?
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I realize that this is an unpopular opinion here on Slashdot, but C# is actually a pretty cool language and the .NET runtime is a promising platform. Microsoft didn't just dream this up overnight...
.Net is a nice language with some advancements over Java, but not different enough from Java to make its existence worthwhile. It's just leading to a lot of duplication of effort across the world (like Ant and Nant, or JUnit and NUnit).
Yes, it took at a least a couple of days to copy all the Java libraries and ReCapitalizeMethods,
Seriously though,
Now if they'd come up with something like Haskel# as the primary language (instead of hamstringing other languages and making all of the core libraries Java like) or something really different that actually advanced the field of programming as a whole, then I might be more appreciative But as it is I see the tremendous duplication of effort across the world to do the same things in Java and C#, and it just makes me sad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Languages written in C:
....
perl
python
ruby
As it is, I don't want to even attempt to emulate another 'grand MS idea'...especially since there are already superior non-MS systems out there that puts .net to shame. No, I'm not going to cite those systems...do your own research. You'd be surprised.
Die Mono Die!
I've been playing around with the Mono implementation of C#, and it's pretty good. It's not quite as good at RAD tasks as Python, but it has some advantages, and the syntax is much easier to play with than C or Java (but again, not quite as easy as Python, but I'm biased in that regard).
However, Mono suffers from the fact that they're trying to play follow the leader by following Microsoft's implementation rather than creating a system of libraries from scratch. Microsoft has a history of pulling the old "embrace and extend" trick, and I fear something similar may happen here.
My guess is that Microsoft will significantly alter the .NET APIs for Longhorn, leaving Mono behind with older legacy libraries that are no longer interoperable with the Microsoft compiler and the rest of the Windows-using world. Needless to say, that would be bad for the Mono team.
Still, if Mono can remain independent, it could very well have a bright future. The Mono team has done a great job of implementing most of the 1.0 .NET API, and the mcs compiler is pretty fast. The GTK bindings are quite nice for such an early release.
Still, the cognitive dissonance of compiling a Linux program and getting a file with an .exe extension is rather difficult...
- C.
IMO, I think Parrot will become the .NET equivalent in the open source world: a language independent VM and a huge standard library. I can't wait to have access to CPAN from my Python programs.
Sure, C# is a lot nicer than C, but Python & Ruby are a lot nicer than C#. If you're going to give up the predictability of C/C++ for a VM, garbage collection, et cetera, why not go all the way up to dynamic execution?
Bryan
It is official; Netcraft confirms: C is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered C community when IDC confirmed that C market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that C has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. C is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Programming Language Usage Audit.
You don't need to be Scott McNealy to predict C's future. The hand writing is on the wall: C faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for C because C is dying. Things are looking very bad for C. As many of us are already aware, C continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
C++ is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time C developers Mark Markup and Sally Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: C is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
C++ leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of C++. How many users of C# are there? Let's see. The number of C++ versus C# posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 C# users. C++ posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of C# posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of C++. A recent article put C# at about 80 percent of the C market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 C++ users. This is consistent with the number of C++ Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Redmond, abysmal sales and so on, C++ went out of business and was taken over by Microsoft who sell another troubled programming language. Now C# is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that C has steadily declined in market share. C is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If C is to survive at all it will be among language dilettante dabblers. C continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, C is dead.
Fact: C is dying
Exactly, there will be "kind of" a functional language - which has to use the same libraries everyone else does, which are all just like the Java libraries. So people using this pseudo-functional language will be hard-pressed to really see the advantages of a functional language as you would if you had a real function language with a set of libraries as broad as that offered by Java.
.Net and C# is the perfect vehicle to migrate users of all other languages to C#, not really to make life easier on people who want to work in one of the non-C# languages.
I formed this opinion long ago, just around when C# first came out, when I read an article by one of the founder of Eiffel talking about how Eiffel# would work (I wish I had not lost the link - I can no longer find this article). He saw opportunity at that point to gain new Eiffel programmers. But I saw only a tar baby, where the longer you worked with the system the more you just said "Well, all I'm doing is calling C# libraries with this weird syntax so I might as well make life easier by just using C#".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
.Net is the platform in which C# is the closest natural representation of what the bytecode is like. As such, .Net is a vehicle for C# and a distorted reflection of all other languages.
.Net is the VM and C# the language. But as Java has shown, it's not really so easy to keep the two wholly separate. They are interdependent to some extent.
Yes,
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Indeed. Since most damned operating systems are written in C I don't think we'll exactly see it go away anytime soon.
Operating systems is where C comes from, and vice versa.
(Yeah, whatever, I'm a C geek. To me, and array of pointers to functions returning pointers to arrays of characters seems like a damned fine idea! =)
Back in my day, we jusy wrote straight to the registers on the device and we were glad! Damned punk kids.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There is almost no difference between C#/Mono/.NET and Java, but almost no Linux developers write in Java. Check out your distribution's packages and you'll almost see more JVMs than Java apps. And for some reason Linux developers avoid Java like the plague, even though it's got a godzillion features that make everything so much easier (garbage collection, huge consistent class library, security, etc). Put in a GTK or QT library interface instead of the slow and huge Swing (that Smalltalkers foisted on Java) and you're golden -- there's every reason to use Java, especially for applications.
The Linux culture has so far prevented Linux from taking the next step. Just look the (essentially) complete lack of interest in gcj (gcc open-source java). Just look at the slow pace of Mono. It isn't goind to happen anytime soon, unless the Linux app community wakes up and sees the future. Yeah, 10 years from now we'll still be doing manual memory management. Sure...
C is inferior, yes. It's hardly dead though.
I think C deserves a little more respect than a blanket comment like this.
We still have assembly languages today for several reasons, even though it's been "dead" since the 80's. Driver writers, compiler writers, and high performance inner-loops of scientific apps NEED snippets of assembly.
Thanks to the design goal of c (as the paint on the metal), you can now program in mixed c/assembly and thus never have to actually write anything in raw assembly files anymore. But you still write with the intention of generating specific sections of assembly.
The people that write c are those that are resource conscious. I am not aware of ANY other language that is allows resource management as well as C. "performance" is just one resource, and I know many argue that JIT's counter-balance the performance advantages of optimized c. I still refuse to belive JIT's have ever approached -O3 performance, but am willing to concede that a well written VM app can perform acceptibly.
ButMemory is another key resource management position that sometimes requires hard computer science to derive workable solutions.. When you abstract how resources are utilized (via a VM), then it negates the value of such hard computer science. Note that this ONLY applies to a particular problem space. Though, a non-trivial problem space to be sure.
The point is thus that the classic paradigm of "the right tool for the job" is essential here. There are MANY problems that are best done with low level, very concise languages like c. Most OS components, VMs, or fast-duty-cycle applications should very well have core work done in c/assembly.
The obvious other end of the stick is managing large amounts of code, for which assembly need not apply, and c is indeed becoming a distant memory as I think you are implying. Yes, web-services and many such fast-to-deploy applications transcend c, but don't be too quick to write-off the value in having a generation of computer scientists that are not well enough versed at writing low level applications.
-Michael
Hmm.
The initiative it takes to back-engineer the
The whole idea of chasing after a proprietary standard like
If Microsoft doesn't want the
Unfortunately, Miguel seems to have a fairly long track record with this sort of Microsoft-chasing. You can run along and play catch-up all you like with other technologies, but, it'll be just like it is with Gnome ---- With Gnome, you're guaranteed nothing better than a perpetual second place finish. Gnome amounts to a Windows wanna-be, instead of a Windows-killer, when it didn't have to be that way. Miguel made it that way.
Look...If you HAVE the talent to do something better, for God's sake, do it. Don't waste your time (and other peoples time) churning out flea market knock-offs of worthwhile products. I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft..I just call it like I see it.
Bowie J. Poag
I respect Miguel, but I think he seriously underestimates the risk posed by MSFT's patents in this area. Quoth the article:
Microsoft has granted a license to use this technology under so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.
"Reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) does not imply "free". RAND was the proposed licensing requirement for W3C patents that was howled down by the community.
Given that MSFT is willing to finance SCO to use arguably illegal tactics to destabilise and discredit free software, who would expect that they are above enforcing a small fee for every patent needed to implement Mono? They needn't do this immediately, in fact it is in their interest to wait until the technology is widely adopted, so they can slug everyone at the same time. Note that the usual legal defences against "submarine patents" won't work either if the terms have been disclosed to be RAND all along.
I take that to mean, "As far as the world of Mono/.Net goes, C is dead."