Slashdot Mirror
Mono Progress In the Past Year
Eugenia writes "OSNews posted an article accounting the applications created in GTK# the past 8 months, since the release of Mono 1.0. While many of them are still in their infancy, it's clear that the platform had a healthy progress, with 'super-hits' like Tomboy, F-spot, MonoDevelop, Muine & Blam! and other, less known gems, like SportsTracker, PolarViewer, MooTag, GFax, GIB, Sonance and Bluefunk. The 2.0 version of Mono is expected around May, but the developers advised distros and users to upgrade to Mono 1.1.4 despite being a beta."
Personally, I don't trust reverse engenering thing and I don't expect anybody at a corporate level can trust that.
.net platform and it could have any impact on mono users.
.net ? no, because .net seem to be fitting the gap let by ASP for all the small/medium project (depending on the "market").
.net collegues.
People need standard, people need complience tests.
mono does not offer both because appart from a very core piece of the platform the rest is locked at Redmont side and MS will make sure it is kept so !
As a consequence, MS can do whaever change they want in the
Who will bet his money on moving sands ?
So, unless MS comit strongly by submiting the WHOLE platform to ECMA or pushing their implementation to some OOS with an OSI approved license, Mono will struggle for survive next to his "big brother".
In those conditions, this means, that mono will never be a complete, stable, relable solution.
How much enterprise project do you have ever see running "mono" ? Personally none.
Is it the problem of
Anyway, comparing that with J2EE, I see daily J2EE OSS based projects implemented and that are proving linux+JBOSS or linux+Tomcat is a cost effective enterprise solution.
So, Mono is still FUD for me and for all my
Can it be that nobody will reason that, by endorsing Mono as a .Net clone/subset, we allow Microsoft to dictate what an open-source product should do?
.Net, it is not very reassuring that resources invested in .Net will not be lost when migrating to Mono.
.Net plug-in that validates code against Mono to ensure that it's Mono-compatible?
FOSS can't beat Microsoft by embrace and extend. More so when it's Microsoft who hold the standard reference and not the other way around. They can make the Mono developers jump wherever they feel like, by extending and deprecating APIs at will.
And, by being a subset of
Changing the subject a little bit, is there a Visual Studio
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Right. So by that logic, you can write OO code in machine language. (Which you can't, by the by; no processor on the market today has a "frob this object" command in its opcodes.)
I wonder when this "OO is just a style" meme will die. Guys, we have different computer languages because machine language is icky. (Have you ever hand-hacked applications using debug.exe? I have. I didn't like it and I'm not going back.)
In order to guard our precious sanity from the frozen wasteland that is raw machine language, we've invented formal languages in which it's possible to describe mathematical constructs in terms of various different metaphors. PROLOG uses pure mathematical logic as a way of approaching the problem domain. Instead of raw 1s and 0s, we escape from it altogether and we get to think in terms of bindings and clauses. (Variables? What are those? Functions? Don't need 'em.)
LISP uses set theory to do the same thing. Learn set theory in and out and you'll discover interesting niches of LISP, and come to appreciate its alien beauty.
What's C? C's a portable Assembler that's been kludged up over the years. That's not an insult--sometimes what you want is a portable Assembler with 30 years of hacks on the side, because those hacks are what give it such power. The C language is designed in such a way as to make kludgy hacks easy to write, which is sometimes a great strength.
The languages we use lend themselves, quite directly, to how we think about problems and how we decide to solve them. As such, it makes absolutely no sense to say "well, you can do OO in any language." Sure you can. All Turing-complete languages are equivalent. But at that point, why don't you go back to machine code? That's Turing-complete, too.
When you've bled from your eyeballs on the raw binary, then come back to languages. Discover what each one brings to the table. Discover where they're superior and where they're inferior. You might discover a lot of new things along the way.