Slashdot Mirror
The Mono Mystery That Wasn't
jammag writes "It was shocking news, or so it seemed: Miguel de Icaza, the Mono creator, was switching his opinion about his life's work — he now seemed to agree with the free software partisans who oppose his Mono work and his Microsoft connections. The story flamed across the Internet and even got picked up on Slashdot. But Bruce Byfield reports that 'De Icaza has not changed his opinions.' De Icaza calls the rumors 'a storm in a teacup.' Tracing the misinformation trail, Byfield concludes that 'the FOSS community excels at communication. However, in this instance, that ability was used irresponsibly.'"
Inflammatory headline supersedes mundane content? Say it ain't so!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Wow, take time to spell check the comment, and completely forgot the header, excuse me while I seek atonement from my old English teachers... This is going to hurt.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Didnt you hear? Stallman converted to scientology and Linus is accepting patches from NAMBLA!! Oh and the EFF finally released its spec for its homegrown DRM scheme.
Sorry, that should read:
Yes, yes, preview first, etc etc.
Good news everyone. Icaza is still a whore.
If you make your living exchanging your talents for money, so are you. So what is your point?
Stop being so inflammatory. If you have a logical argument to make, make it and we will decide whether the argument is valid based on its merit. Otherwise you just blend into the rest of the noise of modern 'rhetoric' (with apologies to true rhetoric).
The original article was a piece of wishful thinking that turned into much more than intended. That said, I don't think Mono has legs. It's too far behind the curve of .Net development, with .Net 4.0 hitting the streets soon, developers can never hope to easily port their latest and greatest over to Mono.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I can see the editor thinking "we already know this is fake news, but let's publish: we are missing a good Mono flamewar since forever!"
Wow, grow up, guys. So he has Microsoft connections? So what? If open source affiliation is a valid reason to hate somebody, you might start rethinking your life priorities. The Mono project gives Linux developers more choice, especially if they have been working with .NET tech for a long time. Would you forfeit years of .NET training and experience because you want to use a Linux platform?
That, or I am missing a bigger picture, in such case maybe someone can elaborate in the implications of said "teacup storm"?
Miguel de Icaza still doesn't understand why 99% of us think that pushing .NET is a bad idea.
In other words, that check from MS finally cleared. :)
.NET on my computers.
In actuality, I think that De Icaza actually believes in what he is doing and not a paid shill. However, I is still don't want anything to do with
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
That's a shame. I'd thought that after all this time he was finally wising up and accepting what everyone else on the planet was saying. I guess either he hasn't put his fanatical devotion to his employer aside (does anyone really believe that he didn't get the job he applied for at Microsoft?) or that his boss told him to back down. Either way, too bad. He's a talented guy and I wish he would work on something useful and less poisonous.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
We have announced that our upcoming Mono release (2.8) will default to 4.0:
http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap
For the first time in Mono's history our C# compiler and its supporting engine and core libraries were done before Microsoft released the product, we were usually one to two years behind. This time we are some five months ahead of time:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Dec-09.html
There are still a handful of loose ends here and there, but luckily, nothing major.
Good news everyone. Icaza is still a whore.
If you make your living exchanging your talents for money, so are you. So what is your point?
I suppose it's the difference between a Companion and a whore.
I tend to choose my employers, and I certainly don't express opinions simply because I'm paid to. That doesn't mean I'll never express an opinion my employer tells me to, only that one of the following is true:
Now, I don't know which De Icaza is at this point -- whether he's a Mono developer because it's his passion, and whether he really believes it's a viable platform (especially given Microsoft's patent minefield), or whether he's doing all this simply because he's got a fat paycheck from Microsoft. But that's the difference.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It's a little more complicated. If you do something for a living that you would do anyway, if you were independently wealthy, you aren't a whore. If you do something that you would never do unless you got paid, you are a whore. Obviously, most actual whores would still have sex for free if they were wealthy, they just wouldn't have sex with you.
Now, I don't think Icaza is a regular whore. He would still be coding if he wasn't getting paid. I think he's an attention whore, which is slightly different. Regular whores do things for money, while attention whores will do anything for attention. Which is even sadder, in a way.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
From Miguels blog
So in fact Miguel was lamenting time lost under a previous, less enlightened management. Not current problems with .NET.
I remember when Mono was first announced. Miguel at the time argued that the free software world had failed to produce any real competitor to Java or .NET style frameworks despite their absolute dominance of mainstream programming. He didn't think one would appear any time soon either. And guess what - he was right. There is no home grown Linux, Apache or Android equivalent to compete with Java or .NET. And whilst Java is now fully open source, it wasn't safe to assume that'd happen back all those years ago.
So in fact it seems Miguel was right all along - right about the need, right about the solution, right that Microsoft would not attempt to "destroy Linux" by leveraging patents. Instead they specifically promised in writing not to do that. Why? Probably because they don't care about Linux anymore. The world has moved on, what once seemed like a threat to their business no longer is.
Didn't this guy start Gnome (or maybe KDE)? that is actually "life's work" worthy, not something nobody cares about like mono.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I never understood whats so immoral or degrading about being a whore. Certainly there are segments of the "sex worker" community that are unsavory and engage in despicable activity (sexual slavery, mental/physical abuse, unfair exploitation) however, there are also those who work freelance and or enjoy their jobs.
I don't mean to ruin whores for you, I mean, maybe you need to see it as degrading and immoral to get off, your kink is ok I guess. Though, I no more understand that kink than asphyxiation, so it does seem a bit strange to me.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
List of all open source iconoclasts --
Miguel de Icaza
Theo de Raadt
notice any similarities between the names?
This is the sort of news that should be picked up by Slashdot: Mono's C# 4.0 compiler released before VS2010. But no, sadly Slashdot is irrevocably biased against Microsoft-created technologies.
"Miguel at the time argued that the free software world had failed to produce any real competitor to Java or .NET style frameworks despite their absolute dominance of mainstream programming."
Why would they need to? While initially some of the Java trademark and licensing mechanism were semi-unfriendly to open source, the situation was a LOT better than it has ever been with .NET, and is much better now.
Instead of trying to create a competitor, the OSS community worked with Java - A lot of Java's success can likely be attributed to the participation of the OSS community. (Heck, even Miguel's blog article effectively says this with his citations of various OSS "research" projects into JIT that became mainstream.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
How about WPF, then? When are you going to develop it? I know: never. The scope of it is way too large for your team.
Same about complete WCF, WWF (and other WTFs).
So in reality, a Mono application will probably work on Windows, but almost none of Windows C# applications will work on Mono.
Women don't like whores because they steal-way their boyfriends or husbands. Women spit on whores mainly reacting from fear.
Boyfriends and husbands like whores, but they pretend they don't, and pass laws to outlaw whores, in order to keep harmony at home.
There.
By the way I never bought the "they sell their bodies and that's wrong" argument. I'm selling my body right now, to the corporation. For 9-10 hours a day I am selling myself as a temporary slave to their whims. So there's no real difference.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
What's the difference between Mono and .NET? How does the liberated open source software community connect to these standards? Where does De Icaza fit in the puzzle?
For this and more, tune in next week for another exciting chapter of "As The Monopoly Turns"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#GNOME.2C_Ximian.2C_and_Mono
In 1999, de Icaza, along with Nat Friedman, co-founded Helix Code, a GNOME-oriented free software company that employed a large number of other GNOME hackers. In 2001, Helix Code, later renamed Ximian, announced the Mono Project, to be led by de Icaza, with the goal to implement Microsoft's new .NET development platform on Linux and Unix-like platforms. In August 2003, Ximian was acquired by Novell, Inc. There, de Icaza is currently the Vice President of Developer Platform.
If you work for Novell, does that mean that Mono is a Novell product and thus covered by the Microsoft-Novell Patent cross license?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You changed the version number for Mono before Microsoft officially did? Wow. ;-)
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Why not call it Mono 4.0 then?
As someone who actually knows Miguel de Icaza and someone who was there when Mono began, I can tell you with absolute certainty that he started Mono because he truly believes that it's a good platform. As do I and all of the other Mono developers (none of whom get a "fat paycheck" from Microsoft or anyone else). The Mono team is underfunded at Novell, so I and likely other developers have taken a pay CUT in order to work on what we believe in.
We are not paid to parrot any opinions from Microsoft or Novell. Our opinions are our own and we stand by them.
You said what you said Miguel, now suck it.
What is this some kind of sex for irony exchange program?
Yes, so if you download your binaries from Novel, then you fall under that agreement.
What's the difference between Mono and .NET? How does the liberated open source software community connect to these standards? Where does De Icaza fit in the puzzle?
Your geek card please... Thanks
Mono is a free implementation of the .NET infrastructure.
De Icaza is just the one that started Mono and integrated it into Gnome.
You're obviously also pretty embarrassed to be against GNOME and Mono, seeing as how you are posting anonymously ;-)
Considering the same can be said for 99% of the people who badmouth Mono, I can rest easy at night knowing that we on the Mono team must be doing the right thing.
For that last 1%, well, no one can please everyone all the time.
no, doing degrading and immoral work for money makes one a whore.
Interesting...
I assume we're still both talking about whores as in prostitutes - folks who sell sex for money.
So... What's so immoral or degrading about that?
Sure, some folks have moral objections to is. And some folks probably find it degrading. But does that mean that prostitution as a whole is automatically immoral and degrading?
Wouldn't that make something like bartending immoral as well, since some religions have moral objections to alcohol?
And wouldn't that make pretty much every job on the planet degrading, because I'm sure there's somebody out there who finds it degrading.
Sure, if you're forced into prostitution against your will... By financial problems, or addiction, or extortion, or whatever... That's bad. But it would also be bad to be forced into anything else against your will.
And it's certainly true that the political/legal climate here in the US seems to push sex workers into immoral and degrading situations...
But in areas where sex work is legal, there are plenty of folks who genuinely enjoy their jobs and don't find it immoral or degrading in the least.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
What does java do that python can't?
*sigh* back to work...
So then, Mono is some form of STD?
There is no home grown Linux, Apache or Android equivalent to compete with Java or .NET.
I would dare to say that PHP competes just fine, just for example.
No sig today.
Damn, wish I could mod you up because you hit the nail on the head.
Yup. When you are mouthing opinions based on orders from on high, you are twisting and manipulating that which makes something your opinion - that you actually believe it. Calling someone out on this might be a rhetorical trick, but someone who has previously sold his opinion should not expect it to be taken serious ever again, and certainly not when expounding on the same subject, while still taking the money!
PS: The parallel to actual whores/prostitutes would be that many believe, and many more somehow feel, that sex is also something which (should) express certain emotions, and not actually having them while implicitly expressing them is twisting that connection. Your milage may vary on how strong or necessary you believe that bond is and should be - personally, I couldn't get past the disconnect...
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
but I wasn't speaking of sex whores, but of work whores.
As for sex whores, despite your (and other poster's here) romantic notions about that line of work most in the world do it either out of desperation for money or are forced to do it.
...I'm amazed at how obtuse (and in some cases, downright insulting) the majority of the comments on this story are. I think it's highly likely that if .NET didn't come from Microsoft, nobody would be getting quite so emotional about the whole thing.
For the record, I'm categorically not Microsoft's greatest fan, but you cannot deny that .NET/C# is a damn good platform. Having a portable version of said good platform is therefore a Good Thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft decide to fuck Mono over; it's still a good platform and therefore still a Good Thing. If you disagree and you don't like it, then fine; don't use it and stop whining.
So you would have us believe that creating and promoting a technically-advanced open-source platform that was conceived by some sharp people at a large software company (influenced by other successful platforms) is degrading? Is the free software built on this platform really endangered by some software patents? If so, what free software, and which patents, specifically? Has a lawsuit against a specific free software project based on these patents been concluded? Thank you for your thoughtful and informative contribution to the discussion.
I think that would probably be a good move... Though, Mono has followed a much more sane version-scheme than MS's marketing driven versions. IMHO .Net 3 should have been 2.3 and 3.5 probably should have been 2.5, since they were based on .Net 2's base libraries. .Net 4 should be 3... but it's too late for that. I would support making the next Mono release 4.0 to have better version parity with MS's framework.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Run fast, support multiple languages, provide 99.9999% secure code environments, support more than one thread executing at a time, etc, etc.
But... Java and Python are two drastically different technologies. Python is great at what it does but it's a scripting language not a virtual platform like Java. .NET is more comparable to Java since .NET was basically cloned feature for feature from Java with some additional features added.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
.NET is Microsoft's implementation of it's CLR (Common Language Runtime). In general anything CLR tends to be referred to as .NET.
Mono is an open source implementation. It runs on Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD and I believe I've even seen it for HPUX. There are probably other platforms. In my experience, if your platform has a libgdi+ library available for it, mono will run most .NET apps written in Visual Studios 2003 and earlier. I'm not sure about later MS dev environments. I also don't know if libgdi+ is needed separately in all environments or just FreeBSD.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I know. It's totally bogus how there isn't an open source implementation of .NET available, isn't it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
And, some (the Mono team) are working with .Net - A lot of .Net's success can likely be attributed to the participation of the OSS community. There's lots of .Net based Open-Source, some of it was ports of Java OSS and other portions built, and re-invented that. I personally prefer .Net over Java. I don't think that Java platforms offer what .Net does in the simplicity of getting something up and running. I also think that .Net lags behind in some of the tooling provided by/for the Java community. What I just don't get is all the hostility. I mean, I'm at a point where I loath IE, and there's plenty of MS decisions I haven't liked, that's true of any large company though.
At this point it's pretty obvious that Mono isn't a submarine strike waiting to happen in Linux, and maybe we should just be supportive of the platform. Not necessarily have everyone switch to it, but at least not be so adamant against it. There's plenty of room for Perl, Python, Ruby, Java and Mono in the land of FL/OSS. To be honest, people could get a lot more done, if they weren't trying to stop other people from getting things done.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I know, right? It's not like anyone is forcing free software developers to use Mono.
I thought free meant freedom to do whatever you want with the source code. Free...they keep using that word, but I do not think it means what they think it means.
:(){
Is that supposed to imply that if it appeared on Slashdot it has some kind of legitimacy? You must be new here.
but I wasn't speaking of sex whores
Damn! For a moment there I thought you had some juicy scoop on Miguel I...
Speaking of doing things out of desperation: As far as work whoring goes, I'm sure we all do it from time to time. At least if those who have a boss or a family or a mortgage or...
Five months ahead?
How can you maintain and guarantee compatibility? Divination, or do you actually work hand in hand with Microsoft .NET developers?
And, has Microsoft added ASP.NET and its other IP to the EMCA 334 & 335 specifications, so that you can legally add them to MONO?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Are you really saying that you would have sex with your boss if ordered to?
Selling your work is entirely different from slavery.
I don't work for the enjoyment of it. I've never had a job I wouldn't rather quit to go read novels all day. I believe most people, if they were being honest, would agree with the statement. That makes us both whores. The only people who work who are not whores are those who are independently wealthy or retired, and work merely for fun or to stave off boredom.
You thought wrong.
First parties posting is one of the strengths of the dot.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The argument against whores and prostitution is that there tends to be rampant exploitation in the sex industry, typically of women by men. Of course, having it illegal means that people like pimps come in and exploit the hos even more, while they typically don't get tested for STDs as often as they do in other, legalized sex professions.
Instead they specifically promised in writing not to do that.
They most absolutely did not. They promised not to annihilate any 100% compatible implementations.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
was that Mono would have a lot of competition if it wasn't for the implicit patent threats coming from Microsoft. IOW, he was complaining that JVM technology had come a long way due to open policies from Sun and that .Net runtime engines had not enjoyed the same benefits. I think he is probably right there.
What I didn't hear him saying was that Mono was a bad project, risked patent infringement claims, etc. There seemed to be some concession on the patent issue but it seemed overblown.
At the same time this summary, suggesting that the communication was handled "irresponsibly" seems no closer to the mark. I can see why people got the impression they did and I think it was a reasonable one.
Things could use everyone stepping back and taking a few deep breaths :-)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm sure that as long as companies follow in Novell's footsteps they'll be fine.
The slash however is a slippery slope.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
By the way I never bought the "they sell their bodies and that's wrong" argument. I'm selling my body right now, to the corporation. For 9-10 hours a day I am selling myself as a temporary slave to their whims. So there's no real difference.
Tell that to the Icelanders. I can't believe a law like that got passed in Northern Europe in the year 2010. It may seem like a minor detail from a small island, but I am appalled.
My Sig: SEGV
No, they had the core libraries for .Net 4.0 in before Microsoft released .Net 4.0. Generally they are a year to two years behind.
Maybe with some practice your reading comprehension will improve. :)
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
What's more, Mono is undeniably Free Software, and it follows the grand tradition of GNU software in that it re-implements someone else's proprietary software (while mixing in its own completely Free Software extensions).
I am by no means a fan of Mono, but I fail to see how it is any different than gcc or the many GNU utilities that are basically work-alikes of any number of proprietary software products. Cloning commercial software products is hardly a new theme in Free Software. What is it, precisely, that makes Mono a special case.
The difference, apparently, is that Microsoft is especially evil.
The problem with that, of course, is that Microsoft is not really that particularly evil. Especially compared to AT&T or IBM in their respective heydays. Sure, patents have changed the game somewhat since the early days of UNIX, but Free Software's defense against patents has always been the same. Pretend that they don't exist until threatened, and then write the functionality out of the effected software. Mono is not appreciably more vulnerable to attacks from Microsoft than the Linux kernel, or any other major piece of Free Software.
So really, why all of the hate?
at my employer I'm the "Enterprise Linux Engineer", so I get to design systems with free software, sometimes implement them including migrating clients from closed source, and sometimes head up software development projects. It's 80% fun for money, the other 20% is when clients are being a pain in the ass.
You are joking, right? You can't possibly be serious.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
There was no open source framework like this because no one in his right mind would want to develop such a framework for his own use.
Both Java and .NET are frameworks made for OTHER people, so those other people can produce seemingly working software while being completely ignorant and untrained. This is why most of "convenience" of Java and .NET is completely irrelevant for developers who produce high-quality code -- as far as language is concerned, if one can notice any "improvement" between C++ and Java, he is likely not qualified to use either.
Java and .NET conquer developers by building massive blobs of interdependent infrastructure that can be only used within those frameworks. Once someone makes an attempt to use a tiny part of it, he has to accept the whole thing, and reject everything else, as this is the core design behind those systems. This is why non-idiots end up working with Java and .NET, not because those platforms are based on some kind of useful ideas.
And now those massive pieces of infrastructure are crumbling under their own weight because everyone who is working on them, mimics Sun and Microsoft, and writes his own massive infrastructures on top on those infrastructures without having nearly enough resources to maintain those things. It's infrastructures all the way down.
C++/Qt developer produces better-looking, more portable and much simpler GUI applications, C programmer does likewise with network servers, and Python programmer writes complex scripts. Java and .NET ended up being a path toward eternal mediocrity that Microsoft so much relies on, and Sun ended up contributing to.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Python is great at what it does but it's a scripting language not a virtual platform like Java.
Please explain. Python is compiled into bytecode, then executed on a VM. Java is compiled into bytecode, then executed on a VM. What substantial distinction would you draw between the two?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Well, Cython allows static typing and compiles to native code. And the slight overhead Java has when it comes to writing/compiling small programs is usually overshadowed by the complexity of most commercial products.
Well said, you deserve at least a +5 insightful!
It's comforting to finally read some words of wisdom!
You also touched on something I have always found so amusing. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but a vast majority of the people badmouthing Mono have not contributed *anything* to F/OSS (like the Boycott Novell trolls), who, when asked why they don't contribute, reply (more-or-less) "we don't have time, we're too busy badmouthing Mono".
Imagine if these people put their time and energy into something constructive instead, like contributing to Rhythmbox (since they obviously hate Banshee), GNote (since they hate Tomboy), or any other alternative to the Mono apps out there. If they put half the energy into that as opposed to writing hundreds of thousands of comments/articles per day bashing us and our project, they'd have nothing to worry about because the C alternatives would have far surpassed the Mono versions.
If the open source community always gave in to FUD and declined to implement anything that *might* have a patent covering it, nothing would ever be accomplished.
Mono is great for the same reason Samba, Wine, and Evolution's exchange connector are. They assist in taking things cross platform (yes, even if you still have to port and avoid certain libraries). The fact that some people find it to be an efficient platform for development is just the icing on the cake. You never have to worry about code written for Mono... being compatible with Mono.
I think GGP, when saying .NET was more comparable to Java than Python was saying that .NET is more comparable to the Java platform than to the Python language. You seem to have taken it to mean .NET is more like the Java language than the Python language.
"Java" is used to refer both to a language and a platform, which is sometimes confusing.
Java's virtual machine (specially Sun/OpenJDK) is much more advanced than Python's (CPython).
Python takes a bytecode and then executes the one or more native instructions it takes to fulfill the purpose of the bytecode instruction. And that's basically all it does.
Java takes the bytecode instruction and compiles into a native format and uses thats for future executions. In addition, it does many other types of optimizations to increase the execution speed. You can run Java in a purely interpreted mode like Python does, pass the -Xint argument on the command line to the java instance. You'll notice it's 10000x slower than the optimized execution paths.
Java's class library is primarily Java code, whereas Python wraps native libraries for much of this work. Both methods have their pros and cons, but it means Python can be prone to more issues regarding different system libraries, etc. Since Java provides it's own virtual platform with most of the code in Java, you don't have these issues as often.
Java also allows for true threading, whereas Python threads are limited by the global interpreter lock preventing you from getting real performance gains from asynchronous execution. You have to resort to multiple python processes to take advantage of multicore processors for example.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
...WOOSH!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I stand corrected. I think the problem is publicity. Thanks for the info.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
from the link:
"Unlike the Java world that is blossoming with dozens of vibrant Java virtual machine implementations, the .NET world has suffered by this meme spread by Ballmer that they would come after people that do not license patents from them."
"The veil of threats that existed over the runtime in 2001 was lifted with the Community Promise announcement but it took eight years, and those were eight years of lost opportunity and FUD directed at all things Microsoft. "
Maybe we define fud differently, I wouldnt use it regarding statements that are facts, and even confirmed to be so in the same block of text.
I guess I'm not seeing the difference between Java-the-platform (JVM + Java-the-language + buttload of libraries) and Python-the-platform (PythonVM + Python-the-language + buttload of libraries). That was what I meant.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Java's virtual machine (specially Sun/OpenJDK) is much more advanced than Python's (CPython).
That's just comparing specific implementations, though. IronPython is JIT compiled, I think. PyPy targets LLVM and I'm pretty sure it's JIT compiled, too.
Java's class library is primarily Java code, whereas Python wraps native libraries for much of this work. Both methods have their pros and cons, but it means Python can be prone to more issues regarding different system libraries, etc. Since Java provides it's own virtual platform with most of the code in Java, you don't have these issues as often,
OK, I'll buy that.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
IIRC Wikipedia also says you can only write about things you don't actually have any real knowledge of, because learning about something necessarily means you acquire some biases about it. Slashdot can be pretty dumb at times, but I don't think we're quite that bad. Yet.
The difference is that the Java platform is a platform targetted by many languages. There's no reason Python's VM couldn't grow into such a thing if effort was put into that direction, but that's not really what the (core, CPython) VM is today (there are Python implementations for Java, .NET, Parrot, etc., but you don't see the reverse -- Java language or C# implementations that target the Python VM.) Right now, CPython's VM is just an implementation detail of a particular Python language runtime, not a separate "platform" in the sense of the Java platform.
If I were him, I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit that I was behind the creation of both GNOME and Mono.
I mean, GNOME is the shittiest open source desktop environment around. It's built on the worst toolkit (Gtk+), it has way too many dependencies and is a pain in the ass to build. It's slow, it's bloated, and most of its applications suck. Compared to KDE, XFCE, and even goddamn CDE, GNOME looks like complete crap.
Just read through the other comments in this thread to learn about the problems with Mono.
Well, you would do best by showing him how it's done. Looking forward to see your next contrib to FOSS.
It's very clear. The part in bold I find most damning. This indicates that he knew all along that you couldn't create an open source implementation of even the CLR without permission from Microsoft. There is a lot in here, but people like Bruce Byfield obviously havent read it properly. He's tried top backtrack and cover up a bit by saying that it's all nothing, but it most certainly is something.
I'm sure plenty of Slashdotters work for large corporations like Oracle and Microsoft, which probably qualifies.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's because of the Java trap, and it is a problem that became obvious before Mono or .net. Basically, Microsoft owns the platform, so it doesn't matter how open source your programs are, Microsoft still exerts some control over them.
I read somewhere that RMS is not opposed to Mono specifically, and in fact favors it, but he views it in the same way he views Wine: a nice tool for portability. And from what I've heard, Mono is a nice tool, but it is not without dangers, especially since the owner is known to be hostile to open source.
Qxe4
> Nobody does this to the Wine developers.
Perhaps I can explain the difference. If Mono were merely intended to enable foreign content to run, as in Moonlight or even running foreign apps as in java, people wouldn't have much of a problem with it. This is where Wine is and thus nobody has a problem with it. It allows us to run apps we wouldn't otherwise have access to but nobody suggested the presence of Wine means we should adopt Win32 as our primary ABI. Mono on the otheer hand was promoted as a preferred development environment for the Free Software environment. Until a critical mass shouted "NO!" it was on the fast track to becoming a non-removable dependency for GNOME and there was serious discussion of rewriting the entire thing in C#.
If you still fail to see the difference I'm afraid I can't help you.
Democrat delenda est
OK, lets agree to MS that Linux is a piece of uncontrolled anarchic software. What about OS X which they could convert multi million line monster to Cocoa in matter of year? Yes, MS Office.
They also make huge money from MS Office sales on OS X, there is something like Apple Inc. which they can call anytime. The API is stable, nobody comes up and invents another sound system. So... Where the hell is .NET 3.5 SP1 for OS X?
Yes, I am expecting them to ship that framework for OS X if it is really a standard, not a trick to save their own Windows OS. No, I don't want some guy's clone, I want the real thing. Code will load on XCode (the same Xcode they use), compile without a single modification and run. That is what Java, Trolltech (Nokia) Qt and their own (!) GTK 2 is. Community isn't an issue either, nobody on OS X land (real, general users) gives a heck to DRM or free sofware philosophy. No RMS here either.
So, MS , where is .NET_3.5SP1.DMG we can download and install?
I feel sorry for the sibling post that actually bought this explanation
Simply put, you're wrong. Java wraps native libraries just as often as other programming languages. This is why the Java Developer Kit instructs you not to use the sun.* (now com.sun.*) packages; they are the OS-specific Java Native Interface classes Sun's Java Runtime Environment uses to make API calls to the operating system.
Hell, you certainly couldn't have forgotten the old "Write Once, Test Everywhere" mantra for Java? While it has gotten better, problems between Java and system libraries are the source of this kind of issue.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I think he and his gang along with that pathetic dying company should leave Gnome, Linux alone. No more trickery to insert Mono to Debian, flagship open source Linux which is (was) like a manifesto of open source philosophy until it got that stupid notes app.
Would they agree on that?
LOL, yea, that'll be the day ;-)
The ego's of the anti-this/that/other-thing people is so hilarious. They love to talk big, but don't have the skills to produce anything.
He was assigned by FSF to code an alternative for KDE which relied on Trolltech Qt and Trolltech was refusing to make it pure GPL for some business reasons.
So, the very same guy assigned to that project for that very single reason came up with Mono, a clone of Microsoft .NET framework. That is the part where people go nuts.
Interestingly and very luckily, Nokia did their best decision to buy Trolltech and as they are a gigantic company, they could convert it to LGPL which Trolltech would go out of business if they dared. So, the very reason of existence of Gnome is gone and Icaza&team does everything to make more people switch to KDE. I would be really pissed if I was a patent licensee of MS on Debian Linux just because I got curious about a note taking application for instance.
Things became so pathetic that people started to check dependencies of Gnome apps before they try them, just in case they depend on Mono trojan.
If you are also a Mono developer, what's your comment on Richard Stallman's claim that, due to Microsoft's software patent saber-rattling, Mono should be used as a "read-only" language in the sense that it's good to enable running proprietary .NET software on the Mono platform but stupid to write new open source software to run on it?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Sounds like you need a to take a class on "Reading Comprehension," specifically: "with most of the code in Java."
As you can see Java's use of native code was noted in my post, but allow me to strike you with this cluebat I have handy:
Java's use of native code in the standard library is only done when it's absolutely required for technical or performance reasons. It's been this way since Sun first debuted the technology.
This is in contrast to Python's tradition of using native code wrappers for just about everything that can be wrapped.
I'm not saying which is better, as you probably failed to read, both methods have their pros and cons. In addition, because of differences in the platforms, Python has much lower overhead while wrapping native code than Java (or .NET does) due to the difference in the platform architecture.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Most new features have been announced on PDC'2008. Since then, there has been a public beta of VS2010 / .NET 4 in May 2009, a second one in October 2009, and RC in February 2010.
It's still impressive that they have implemented it all in slightly over a year, but there is no mystery here.
There haven't been any updates to Ecma-335/335 so far. This doesn't preclude Mono from having an ASP.NET implementation, though - in fact, it's probably the single non-Ecma library that Mono has the best (most compatible etc) implementation of, and had for a while.
You do realize that you can just take your C++ code, compile it for .NET, and it will just work, right?
And it is very easy to have Java/.NET frontend (for RAD) with C/C++ backend (for performance); especially so with .NET, because it has P/Invoke and a matching type system.
Yes but it's still .Net so being ahead on the core libs or not hopefully any sensible programmer will stay away from it.
The Java trap doesn't really apply to Mono. The real problem with Java was that developers tended to use non-free Java tools even when developing for and on GNU/Linux. That's not the case at all with Mono. In fact, there are any number of Free Software projects written in Mono that will not run on Microsoft's .NET because they use GTK# or other Mono-specific extensions.
Besides, it is not as if the GNU project doesn't have it's own C# tools. Take a look at DotGNU, for instance. If Mono is so bad, then where does the FSF get off supporting DotGNU as an official GNU project? Heck, if you search on gnu.org you will even find several comments by RMS himself about the glowing promise of Mono. Take This one, for example.
When push comes to shove RMS' real issue with Mono is that he'd rather have you write your Free Software in C (or guile). The rest is pure FUD. If Microsoft decided to target gcc, Emacs, or whatever, tomorrow with a full frontal patent assualt they could probably come up with something that would be useful. You don't see RMS telling people not to use these software products because they might be infringing on Microsoft's patents.
So why, precisely, is Mono a special case?
Microsoft owns the platform
The entire Mono project is available under a free software license. In what sense does Microsoft "own" it?
I am by no means a fan of Mono, but I fail to see how it is any different than gcc
Ah well that makes sense. Here it is in a nutshell:
Gcc is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology, in particular patents owned by companies hostile to free software.
Mono is most definitely encumbered by patents owned by a company that is very hostile towards free software, and has been recently becoming more vocal about alleging patent violations in Linux and threatening legal action.
Mono is not appreciably more vulnerable to attacks from Microsoft than the Linux kernel, or any other major piece of Free Software.
Yes it most definitely is! Because the vulnerability is not hypothetical, it is not a made-up FUD tactic. It's plain as day and undeniable that these patents cover things in Mono, and it is not a simple matter of recoding if MS ever becomes aggressive. There are aspects of the framework that simply cannot be implemented to spec without running into these patents.
Microsoft has no interest in anything cross-platform excepting those that are owned by MS. They have promised not to enforce patents against Mono, but this is not a legally binding promise. The only reason they have to let Mono exist is to waste the time of Linux developers, and to encourage adoption of a framework that is ostensibly cross-platform but can be instantly made Windows-only any time they want.
Oh and I think you're wrong. MS is just as evil as IBM and AT&T. Main difference is that today MS only controls the software while IBM controlled both.
This is absolutely a time bomb and MS is just waiting for the right moment to set it off.
The enemies of Democracy are
more like a porn star
because we know what the potential consequences would be.
Those consequences would be... what, exactly? A few OSS projects being shut down? Some distros forced to remove a few packages? OH GOD NO! THE HORROR!
Right, it's not a threat to their business, and they've been insightful enough to realize that. Which is why they haven't leveraged their patents against Linux in any way. Have you been living in a cave for the last 5 years?
On the other hand, there's no evidence from all of the above saber-rattling that Linux is infringing upon any of their patents. If they really have a credible infringement case, why haven't they sued Canonical, Red Hat, Mandriva, or any other company that hasn't agreed to "build bridges" with them? One also could wonder why they haven't publicly stated which patents are infringed, but the answer is of course that with or without a credible case, publicly stating which patents are infringed upon would allow the FOSS community to fight back with workarounds or invalidations of those patents.
It's what your lips do when you smell "cheez".
Gcc is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology
And Mono is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology.
Or have you found a patent that covers .NET? I haven't. No one else I've asked has. Have you?
Cython is really about writing C code in a Python like style to create Python extensions. This adds additional complexities in debugging (can't step through in your IDE seamlessly), building and distributing. The trade-off is acceptable in specific cases, but quite clunky otherwise. I am not eager to write anything substantial in it since tool support is not super. Cython is a neat hack. But a better example of using a statically typed native code for performance and a dynamically typed language for productivity is Java + Groovy. Ultimately however, the language choice boils down to it's eco-system, the point that Miguel was stressing. I pick the language based on whatever community has the libraries and experience for the kind of problem I am solving, even if the language and performance are not the best fit. Python is great for my scientific projects (lots of easy-to-use libraries, quick prototyping). But I am yet to see proper mature equivalents with tooling for things like ZK, and Eclipse RCP on the Python VM.
If the danger to Mono is so obvious, then please point out the patent numbers that Microsoft owns that would apply to Mono (and that don't, at the same time, apply to Free Software tools like OpenJDK, or gcc). Additionally, you should only use patents that don't apply to the ECMA specification.
What? You don't have access to such a list? Imagine that! My guess is that this is because (to my knowledge) no one has come up with such a list of patents. It is possible that you have access to such a list--in which case your accusations could *potentially* stop being FUD. Until then, however, you have no evidence that Mono is particularly vulnerable to attack from Microsoft.
Microsoft has already stated that it believes that Linux (for example) violates hundreds of its patents. In fact, it has even signed patent deals that supposedly cover Linux. Patent attacks on Linux are definitely not FUD. Should I stop using Linux as well?
If Mono is a trap, then it is quite likely to be the stupidest trap in the history of the world. At the very best Microsoft could force the Mono developers to be less compatible with .NET. Since Mono is not particularly compatible with .NET in the first place this is hardly a huge threat.
And Mono is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology.
Or have you found a patent that covers .NET? I haven't. No one else I've asked has. Have you?
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology. It's always been known that Mono is not free of patented technology, Miguel has never claimed it was free of patents, he always admitted that it was not.
Oh and yeah before you get to it, we've also known about the Community Promise for a long time and discussed its problems too. Specifically, note that this "irrevocable" promise only applies to things that implement a specific version of the standard, and even then only to the extent that they comply with the standard (as decided by Microsoft), and that any future standard may or may not be covered by the promise.
In other words, at any time they want, MS can decide your implementation doesn't comply, or release a new version of the framework that you are no longer able to comply with and cannot implement without exposing yourself to patent claims.
It's embrace-extend-extinguish like usual, only this time MS tricked part of the Linux community into doing the embracing.
The enemies of Democracy are
They actually should call it Mono 5.5. That would teach Microsoft.
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology.
Uhuh.
Where are the patents? They have to be published somewhere, so... where are they? The only one I can find is this one which is incredibly narrow, as it only covers the construction of web-based applications.
And no, I don't give a crap what the Mono website says, as I have no reason to believe they've done their diligence any more than you have. AFAICT, all this talk about patents on .NET is hot air, blown by a company prone to bluster.
You do realize that you can just take your C++ code, compile it for .NET, and it will just work, right?
I can also compile it for 8080 and run it in an emulator. In both cases one would get the worst of both worlds.
And it is very easy to have Java/.NET frontend (for RAD) with C/C++ backend (for performance); especially so with .NET, because it has P/Invoke and a matching type system.
And that would require two programmers -- a n00b for Java and a professional for C/C++.
Or the same work can be implemented by one professional programmer in the same time -- because face it, RAD is for marketing people who make UI mockups for vaporware.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I doubt he meant it's good to run proprietary .NET software. He probably meant, it's good to run existing free .NET software, but bad to dev more apps for it, or advance those already built for it.
I don't know if it's a good platform, but I wouldn't use it - not in countries that have software patents. I DO NOT trust Microsoft.
I can also compile it for 8080 and run it in an emulator. In both cases one would get the worst of both worlds.
Can you specify exactly what your problems would be with C++ code compiled to CIL and JIT'ted to native code to run (as it works in .NET).
And that would require two programmers -- a n00b for Java and a professional for C/C++.
No, it would require a single programmer for both parts. What, you think people who know both C++ and Java, or both C++ and .NET, are rare?
Heck, the product I've been working on for the past year is half C#, half C++. And it's millions of lines of code (quite literally). And we don't have separate "C++ programmers" and "C# programmers" on the team - everyone does both.
Or the same work can be implemented by one professional programmer in the same time -- because face it, RAD is for marketing people who make UI mockups for vaporware.
"RAD" isn't dragging and dropping buttons on the form. RAD is the entire set of features offered by modern IDEs - and this includes such things as advanced refactoring, code pattern search, dynamic preview for hand-coded UI markup, etc. The trick here is that all this is harder to do as the language gets lower-level. For a simple example, compare the features of data visualizers in debugger Watch windows under Java/.NET, and C++.
Also, frankly, C++ is a crappy language for a code-aware editor to work with. It's very hard to parse correctly in all cases, quite ambiguous, and often highly context-sensitive (think template instantiation, and don't forget about partial specializations etc). A typical C++ IDE does some crappy basic code completion that, at best, can deal with simple templates. The only two IDEs I know that actually have proper, fully featured code completion for C++ are VS2010 and KDevelop 4 - and stable versions haven't been released for either, yet. And that's just basic code completion, something that worked a decade ago in all Java IDEs, and even earlier than that in Delphi!
perse ==> per se [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_se]
And it compiles (not bytecode) for the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Dilbert RSS feed
Can you specify exactly what your problems would be with C++ code compiled to CIL and JIT'ted to native code to run (as it works in .NET).
The whole point of languages like C and C++ is to NOT require a massive, potentially buggy library with flimsy interface to the system, and still implement a sufficiently high-level language. The problem is that more code, especially more code from geniuses like Microsoft programmers or Miguel, in this case contributes nothing but its bugs and more stuff to fit into tiny L1 cache.
"RAD" isn't dragging and dropping buttons on the form. RAD is the entire set of features offered by modern IDEs - and this includes such things as advanced refactoring, code pattern search, dynamic preview for hand-coded UI markup, etc. The trick here is that all this is harder to do as the language gets lower-level. For a simple example, compare the features of data visualizers in debugger Watch windows under Java/.NET, and C++.
All that are not GUI design tools (that at least have a legitimate use) I place in the category of "n00b assistance". When a good programmer needs to see a data of a running program, I can assure you, he would gain absolutely nothing from debugging features of any IDE -- he would have to deal with data that changes over time, so nothing but debugging log would provide anything useful. A n00b who writes three bugs per line, of course, will single-step through his program and look at every bit of his variables, lovingly formatted by his beloved Visual Studio, but this is why his programs suck even after they stop crashing in his tests.
Also, frankly, C++ is a crappy language for a code-aware editor to work with.
Yes, I know, all languages must be written in XML, and presented to the programmer as collapsible tree.
It's very hard to parse correctly in all cases, quite ambiguous, and often highly context-sensitive (think template instantiation, and don't forget about partial specializations etc).
Do you realize, what the Hell you just wrote?!!! It's a programming language. It is parsed by its compiler. If is DESIGNED to be parsed by a compiler. Every compiler already contains everything you need to parse any C or C++ program -- just take a parser from there and feed the tokens to the editor.
If you didn't realize that, how can you be allowed anywhere close to writing software?
A typical C++ IDE does some crappy basic code completion that, at best, can deal with simple templates. The only two IDEs I know that actually have proper, fully featured code completion for C++ are VS2010 and KDevelop 4 - and stable versions haven't been released for either, yet. And that's just basic code completion, something that worked a decade ago in all Java IDEs, and even earlier than that in Delphi!
If you need code completion to write in a C, you don't need an IDE -- you need a pension that will be paid to you for not writing software.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I won't even bother responding to the rest of your points - you're clearly the kind of guy who codes GNU/Hurd in Vim in Ratpoison, and will ignore any logical arguments and calls to reason. That said, I feel the need to address one point, for the benefit of anyone else who might stumble onto this conversation.
Do you realize, what the Hell you just wrote?!!! It's a programming language. It is parsed by its compiler. If is DESIGNED to be parsed by a compiler. Every compiler already contains everything you need to parse any C or C++ program -- just take a parser from there and feed the tokens to the editor.
The difference - and it's a huge one - is that a compiler only needs to parse an input file once, from start to finish, to build the AST. For a complex language such as C++, doing several passes can simplify that, so that context-sensitive constructs can be parsed easier without reconciling them later, but there's still a limited number of passes done.
In contrast, an IDE needs to maintain the AST (and any other constructs that it needs for syntax highlighting, code completion etc) up-to-date with respect to any changes made in the editor - arbitrary insertions and deletions of text. For multi-file projects, this applies across the entire set of files that are currently open. A dumb way of doing that - by reparsing the entire file after every change - is extremely inefficient, and will quickly become unusable even with a small project.
So, the editor needs to do incremental reparsing - trying to intelligently figure out how the change (at that point, just a bunch of characters) could affect the AST and the previously extracted symbolic info, and only reparsing as much as needed. In a language where "A<B>C" can mean two entirely different things depending on what A, B and C all are at that particular point in the code, it's a very tricky thing to do right while keeping performance at a reasonable level. A single character put in a right place in a C++ program can completely change the meaning of a bunch of lines of code. Commenting or uncommenting a single line in the header (say, with a template specialization) can change the meaning of hundreds of declarations across the whole project. And so on.
Of course, you'd need to write a C++ parser - or at least actually know the C++ grammar well - to realize the magnitude of this task. I doubt you do either, judging by your cowboy attitude, and contempt towards anything and anyone that doesn't fit into your narrow world view. It would do you well to learn, but I guess it would be more fun to go tell KDevelop guys that they're all idiots for not being able to figure out how to properly handle C++ code-aware editing for almost 10 years, so off you go.
So a half-assed internet search uncovered a patent that covers the architecture for networked applications in .NET. And that's not good enough for you? How did that go again? "As far as anyone knows, Mono has no patent issues... except the one I found in two minutes of googling. But I'm sure that's it."
Yeah whatever.
I'm not doing "diligence" because I'd never set my foot in that bear trap in the first place.
The enemies of Democracy are
I won't even bother responding to the rest of your points - you're clearly the kind of guy who codes GNU/Hurd in Vim in Ratpoison, and will ignore any logical arguments and calls to reason. That said, I feel the need to address one point, for the benefit of anyone else who might stumble onto this conversation.
Actually I use XEmacs -- at some point in history a notoriously bloated editor with large amount of built-in IDE functionality. I have yet to see anyone complaining about results.
The difference - and it's a huge one - is that a compiler only needs to parse an input file once, from start to finish, to build the AST. For a complex language such as C++, doing several passes can simplify that, so that context-sensitive constructs can be parsed easier without reconciling them later, but there's still a limited number of passes done.
In contrast, an IDE needs to maintain the AST (and any other constructs that it needs for syntax highlighting, code completion etc) up-to-date with respect to any changes made in the editor - arbitrary insertions and deletions of text. For multi-file projects, this applies across the entire set of files that are currently open. A dumb way of doing that - by reparsing the entire file after every change - is extremely inefficient, and will quickly become unusable even with a small project.
Even if it was necessary to re-parse the whole file, it would require a tiny fraction of resources that is used to draw GUI of the same editor. To make merely syntax-coloring simple scanning would be sufficient -- full parsing is only necessary for things like cross-reference.
So, the editor needs to do incremental reparsing - trying to intelligently figure out how the change (at that point, just a bunch of characters) could affect the AST and the previously extracted symbolic info, and only reparsing as much as needed. In a language where "A<B>C" can mean two entirely different things depending on what A, B and C all are at that particular point in the code, it's a very tricky thing to do right while keeping performance at a reasonable level.
And why in the world an editor would want to distinguish between those cases? Syntax highlighting is merely an unobtrusive visual hint for the programmer to distinguish things that he already understands. It's not a job for the editor to overlay some kind of full representation of compiled code over the source while I am editing it. It can be done, but it would be merely a toy for the n00bs who need hand-holding with C syntax.
A single character put in a right place in a C++ program can completely change the meaning of a bunch of lines of code. Commenting or uncommenting a single line in the header (say, with a template specialization) can change the meaning of hundreds of declarations across the whole project. And so on.
You can do that with a compiler if you believe that it's necessary. However it would be still a stupid thing to do.
Of course, you'd need to write a C++ parser - or at least actually know the C++ grammar well - to realize the magnitude of this task.
It it's an "IDE", it contains a compiler already. And compilers are a mandatory part of any decent CS program. Of course, most "programmers" who use Visual Studio, never taken a course in compilers. Or any CS course. Or any linguistics course. Or any math course. Maybe a psychology or art course, but they are lucky if it in any way relates to user interface.
I doubt you do either, judging by your cowboy attitude, and contempt towards anything and anyone that doesn't fit into your narrow world view.
It's not a "cowboy attitude", it's an attitude of a professional who is faced with profanation of his profession.
It would do you well to learn, but I guess it would be more fun to go tell KDevelop guys that they're all idiots for not bein
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
And that's not good enough for you? .
Correct. That's not good enough for me. Why does this surprise you? It's one, old patent application that attempts to cover just one area where .NET is applicable, and where Mono isn't even predominantly used. Try digging a little deeper and you discover something interesting: there aren't any other patents. That seems to be the only one. And it hasn't even been granted!
I'm not doing "diligence" because I'd never set my foot in that bear trap in the first place.
No, you aren't bothering to research your claims because it's easier to simply state them without support, just as ever other Mono opponent has done.
But, that's okay. Mono has been around for years, and MS hasn't sued anyone. And in a few years from now, after MS *still* hasn't sued anyone, most people will realize, just as they did with the Linux kernel after MS started its posturing, that it's not worth the trouble listening to paranoid reactionaries like yourself.
Pat? Is that you?
Wow, you fail at reading comprehension. Miguel has never claimed that Mono *doesn't* infringe on patents because he can't be 100% certain that it doesn't, it's not the same as knowing that it *does*.
No one has been able to point us (the Mono team) at a single patent that we may infringe. Not one. You'd think, with all the rabidly anti-Mono trolls such as yourself, that one of you, after 9 years, would have come up with at least 1 solid patent infringement claim, but no.
Same old vague hand waiving claiming we infringe patents that you can't point to but just *know* exist. Sorta like some people claim to *know* that God really exists, or like many children believe with all their heart that Santa Clause really exists.
...WOOSH!
Property is theft.
It's 80% fun for money, the other 20% is when clients are being a pain in the ass.
That's probably what a look of hookers say too.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
He's wrong. Python would fit in that category. As would several other languages such as Ruby.
That would be Parrot. Or even LLVM.
Byfield concludes that 'the FOSS community excels at communication. However, in this instance, that ability was used irresponsibly.'"
Tricky wording here. Yes, excelling at communication.. not to be confused with excelling at responsible communication.
Can we just get the IDE to work with the debugger?
"I stomp in clown shoes where daemons fear to tread."
You can run Java in a purely interpreted mode like Python does, pass the -Xint argument on the command line to the java instance. You'll notice it's 10000x slower than the optimized execution paths.
Then why isn't Python 10000x times slower than Java? http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python3&lang2=javaxint
You fail at reading comprehension.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Or at least link-posting. The link should of course be http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python3&lang2=java
The question still remains, 10000X seems like a grave exaggeration. (Which is confirmed by http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=javaxint&lang2=java)
My point being that your assumption that JIT does THAT much of a difference is a bit flawed. CPython still is no match when comparing to JIT Java, of course, but the difference is roughly 30X, not 10000X.
Wikipedia also says you can only write about things you don't actually have any real knowledge of... I don't think we're quite that bad. Yet.
Well, it's not an official policy here at /. More like an unspoken ideal.
The enemies of Democracy are
Wonder who switched his bulb on. Second place really sucks in two player game.