Slashdot Mirror
Technology Review Profiles Miguel de Icaza
prostoalex writes "Technology Review has a feature story on Miguel de Icaza, currently Novell VP of Product Technology, but more known as the leader of Gnome and Mono projects. Miguel is the man Don Box would like to see joining Microsoft for his "amazing amount of raw energy". If you read through the Technology review article, you will see that de Icaza was actually turned down by Microsoft at some point."
[...] de Icaza took the interview as an opportunity to lecture managers on why Microsoft should abandon its multibillion-dollar business model and embrace open-source programming. Not surprisingly, de Icaza wasn't hired.
The blurb here makes it sound like he was begging on his knees for them to take him on. Not quite what the article describes. He's not the least "confused on what side he's on".
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Python, which also bears little resemblance to C#, also appears to run very nicely on .NET and pretty well on Mono. http://ironpython.com/. While they aren't all open source, there are also many other languages with compilers directed at the CLI: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/lang/.
.NET because Java can be run on Mono via the IKVM project http://www.ikvm.net/.
Finally, there seems to be no reason to suppose that Java is somehow more flexible than
I'm not advocating the use of Mono (and I'm certainly not advocating the use of Windows), but arguments against it should be technically correct.
Kluge
Some languages map very nicely to the JVM or the CLR
/clr flag which is a very convenient
(the same developer that did Jython now has
a very fast implementation called IronPython that
was unveiled and demostrated at OSCON).
The problem is with languages that require pointers:
Fortran, C, C++ and some extra support is convenient
for some functional languages that the CLR
provides.
I mean, nothing really ground breaking, but the
CLR had a chance to learn from Java's limitations.
The new MS C++ compiler generates pure CIL executables
when using the
way of integrating existing C/C++ codebases with
managed codebases.
Miguel.
http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/two-stac
One is the Microsoft compatible one.
The other one is where we are pouring our energies:
An ECMA core with the following on top:
There are quite a few of other open source stacks
for the ECMA CLI today that range from research
to practically useful.
Miguel.
No, today we do not have Windows.Forms implemented
(I should update that graph with the latest version
where we point that out).
Windows.Forms will be available in a few months.
They extended Java to the point where you could write Java that would only run with MS JVM - I don't see why they couldn't do that with their own .NET as well, so alas your point does not settle my concerns.
Check out my PHP Url Validator
Insightful, my ass.
This clown has been posting the same drivel on slashdot since time immemorial and I don't believe a word he says.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
If you really want to "get it" see the Samba project. That cat and mouse game has been going on for the better part of a decade. ... Mono can be blown up at any time simply with a patch.
.NET, on the other hand, is a publically documented development platform. (One that's an ECMA standard, no less!) Even if Microsoft wanted to pull a fast one and try to change something to make Mono incompatible, their hands are tied since changes that would be required to break Mono compatibility would also break every application that runs on .NET.
That's pure FUD, and shows a complete lack of understand of the issues involved.
Samba has had problems with SMB because SMB was an undocumented protocol that changed as new features were added. Not because Microsoft was making changes just to screw them.
Seriously, get a clue.
NO CARRIER
You are wrong.
;-)
I have never been detained, its a shame, because
the legend is a lot more interesting than the real
story
Miguel.