DotGNU Ported to PocketPC

t3rmin4t0r writes "The Pocket PC# group has ported DotGNU Portable.net to PocketPC. This is a significant step because the .NET Compact Framework SDK is heavily licensed, unlike the .NET SDK available for free from MSDN. Thanks to PocketPC#, now you can build Window.Forms C# applications for PocketPC without submitting to Microsoft's exhorbitant SDK licensing fees. Portability to embedded/low-end hardware is one of Portable.net's stated goals. DotGNU Portable.net also works on 9 major CPU architectures according to gentoo's portage. The Darwin-ports features a cool package with Windows.Forms for Mac OS X. Handhelds like iPAQ or Zaurus have also ports (the iPAQ one features Windows.Forms). Esoteric hardware like the Sony Playstation 2 or the Microsoft XBox can also run Portable.net."

Comments

Some screenshots

[Simon (S2)]

here, here, here and here.

Re:Some screenshots

[Gopal.V]

Even prettier :)

A Dcop Component Tree in WinForms , An HTML Renderer (compona.com not open yet) A PieChart control A simple IDE ...

and much much more (I don't want that box totally slashdotted) !!!

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[michael.creasy]

Lack of research.
Windows Mobile Developer Resrource Kit All the SDKs on DVD/CD. I clicked through to order and the price of the kit was $0.00

DotGNU and Parrot : The Real Story

[Gopal.V]

DotGNU Support in Parrot CVS | Parrot Support in DotGNU CVS

*g* -- I like parrot -- In fact I want Parrot to become the FreeSoftware VM :)

Heavily Licensed? Are you sure?

[Aphrika]

I may be wrong here, but last time I looked, the only 'heavily licensed' part of developing for the .NET Compact Framework I could find was that I had to buy Visual Studio.NET 2003 in order to use it. There are no licenses per se for developing/deploying with the .NET CF, so what exactly does Pocket C# exist for?

Now, as far as I know, no SDK exists for Compact Framework 1.0, but one is slated for 2.0, as mentioned in this post. It seems an SDK doesn't exist due to time constraints, rather than licensing requirements.

Re:Good News!

[arkanes]

I can't speak to DotGNU, but the CompactFramework is _not_ optimized for speed, at least when it comes to graphics. The bitmap object is especially bad - on a 400mhz strongarm, a simple transform (to rotate a bitmap to landscape) took roughly 10 seconds to render. Per pixel bitmap access is _slow_ in the compact framework. You can wrap up the GAPI (which basically just gives you an addressable framebuffer) in .NET calls, but all the work is done by C then.

Also, the Compact Framework is NOT heavily licensed. It ships with VS 2003, and while thats espensive (a couple grand, I think) there's no special licensing besides the money.

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[Aphrika]

The problem is that there's no SDK for the .NET CF 1.0, meaning you have to develop for it in Visual Studio 2003.

However, the reason is that they ran out of time, evidently a whole different kettle of fish from 'heavy licensing requirements' that's touted in the story. That's basically FUD.

So without an SDK, the only licensing requirement you have to satisfy to develop for it is a Visual Studio.NET 2003 license, there is no licensing attached to the runtimes. However, an SDK is pencilled in for the .NET CF 2.0 release.

Re:Cost of Compact Framework?

[Shaklee39]

Or you can download it for free

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe..:)

Who writes these news?

"The Pocket PC# group".. Author of this port is me, Vitaliy Pronkin.. I'll think about changing my name to "Pocket PC# group" :)

More.. This port doesn't allow you to write .net CF applications FOR PocketPC (you already can do this for a long time) - it allows to write them ON PocketPC, I ported only C# compiler and tools.

Regards,
Vitaliy Pronkin
pub-at-mifki.ru

.NET opposes open standards

[Openstandards.net]

The problem is that the .NET "standard" is still going to be maintained by Microsoft. I know that C# has been given to the ECMA; but that's only part of .NET. The APIs are still going to be dictated from Redmond, so any implementation of it, including open source, is supporting Microsoft as a standards setter.

This is how they created a near monopoly in both the desktop operating system and office software markets. Do you want this to continue to development platforms, or do you want open standards based development that isn't controlled by a single company?