Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mono 2.0 and .NET On Linux

Posted by kdawson on from the receding-taillights dept.

Several readers noted the release of Mono 2.0, which is compatible with Microsoft's .NET Framework 2.0. According to Miguel de Icaza, "... users can move over server applications built for .NET and client applications built with Windows Forms." InternetNews points out that only about half of the .NET apps out there will work on Mono 2.0, for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) legacy Windows-only libraries and Microsoft's progress on .NET 3.0 and 3.5 APIs.

8 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of it anyway; but crucially, LINQ.

    The bits missing (Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation) aren't as crucial in my personal opinion; they are just nice toys you aren't going to miss if you've never had them before.

    LINQ however is a killer feature IMO; I'm glad to see that's now available on mono.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:Mono 2.0 Supports .Net 3.0 by uberjack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of it anyway; but crucially, LINQ.

      The bits missing (Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation) aren't as crucial in my personal opinion; they are just nice toys you aren't going to miss if you've never had them before.

      LINQ however is a killer feature IMO; I'm glad to see that's now available on mono.

      Personally, I find LINQ's complete throwing away of proper syntax annoying. Most .net developers I know have no idea that LINQ is simply syntactic sugar, and that the whole thing can be implemented by a bunch of method calls that make a lot more sense, from a structural standpoint. This is the problem I have with Microsoft's technologies in general (think ASP.net's asinine oversimplification of the http protocol) - instead of improving new programmers' understanding of existing technology, they re-warp the programmers' heads around their idea of how the technology should be implemented.

  2. Re:Oh just go away by Merusdraconis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Except that C# is a decent little language? It's good to see it open-source, that way it can have a life after Microsoft tires of it.

  3. Re:Oh just go away by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't want to run my stuff on Microsoft technologies but I have potential (and actual) customers who already do use them.

    In order to integrate their application and ours we needed to code a little plugin to run on their ASP.NET (or whatever the correct name is) servers.

    Mono allowed me to develop the required plugin on a Ubuntu box. (They then wanted the resulting assembly signed, we gave them the source code so they could do it themselves).

    Microsoft was relevant to us because we had a potential customer who used it and isn't about to abandon their entire existing system just for us.

    Without Mono there would have been two options:
    a) Pony up to MS to develop in .NET
    b) Don't do the business.
    neither of which are particularly appealing.

    Mono allows competition and competition is good.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  4. Re:I like Mono, but... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Seriously though, what applications are using Net 3.5 instead of all the stuff that can only run with Net 1.0 or Net 2.0? Today I installed the September release of some ridulously expensive software and it required Net 1.0. This software also runs on mono with a bit of dodgy linking (pretending that libexif is a different version - weird becuase it has no business being a dependancy in the first place unless you need it).

    I really do not understand why Net is not backwards compatible but I suppose at least I should be happy that the libraries can co-exist instead of the old DLL hell. Microsofts attempt to replace Java could have been implemented in a better way.

    How much decent Net software is there out there anyway? Is it all in-house so we never see it? I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it.

  5. Re:I like Mono, but... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see a lot of people interested in LINQ, extension methods, a more functional style of coding, and ASP.Net MVC. So maybe your mileage will vary.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  6. Re:Oh just go away by robthebloke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a .net developer, you have to notice that Managed DirectX doesn't exist anymore, and XNA is too nowhere near as powerful as MDX was. There is SlimDX, which is a binding around DX10, which is quite cool, but has only become available recently.

    The Tao Framework is more or less the best thing out there right now for .NET. It provides cross platform .NET bindings for openGL, SDL/glut/glfw, as well as OpenAL, devil and CG. It's basically a cross platform XNA equivalent.... but a lot better ;)

    Whilst i appreciate /. is full of MS bashing, I'd actually suggest you go try mono with the Tao framework, and it might prove to be a suprisingly pleasing environment to work in....

  7. Re:Oh just go away by Lord+Lode · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or better: Write a C# compiler that compiles to the java virtual machine.