Slashdot Mirror
Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code
jones_supa writes: Version 4.0.0 of Mono, the FOSS implementation of the .NET Framework, has been released. This is the first release of Mono that replaces various components of Mono with code that was released by Microsoft under the MIT license. Microsoft itself is working towards .NET Core: a redistributable and re-imagined version of .NET, which has two code drops: CoreFX and CoreCLR. Mono at this point continues to provide an API that tracks the .NET desktop/server version. This means that most of the Mono code that has been integrated from Microsoft comes from the ReferenceSource code drop. Mono's C# compiler now also defaults to C# 6.0.
Being able to use C# on Linux and OS X and the BSDs will make languages like Rust, Go and D even less useful than they already are. People who are anti-Microsoft may not like to admit this, but C# is an excellent programming language, and .NET is an excellent runtime. Although they're over a decade old, they were so far ahead of their time when they were first released that they still feel fresh and relevant even today.
Mono was always OK, but not great. Now that Microsoft is releasing code that Mono can also use, everyone is a lot better off. We'll finally be getting a high quality VM runtime for Linux, much better than Java and it's VM, and much, much better than Parrot and the other failed open source VMs. The .NET CLR always feels very transparent, unlike the JVM which is painfully obvious.
It's getting to the point where any sensible software developer will write their software in C#, even if targeting Linux. C# is just the best general purpose language out there. In the rare cases where C# isn't suitable for some reason, modern C++ provides a superb alternative.
Between C# and C++, there's just no need for other languages. Both C# and C++ offer low level functionality, as well as much higher level functionality like lambda functions, closures, generics/templates, OO, memory safety through GC and/or smart pointers, and so on.
There's just no sensible reason to use a language like Rust, Go or D these days. They're inferior to languages like C# and C++ in various ways, but without being any better. So you're inherently worse off when you use them.
If you're ever in a situation where you may be choosing between Rust, Go or D, postpone your decision and look at C# and C++. You will very likely be making a better choice by choosing mainstream, well-supported, portable, mature and efficient languages like C# and C++.
It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors. Microsoft isn't trustworthy, and as there are alternatives to .NET, the easiest way to protect against future bad behavior by Microsoft is to use those alternatives. Why risk future woes when you have no need to?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
BASIC is every bit as modern as any other language and structurally equivalent to any modern static language. It's more verbose than C and similar languages [...]
Verbosity is the problem.
If I were fine with the screens and screens of the boilerplate code, I would have simply used the Java.
I don't understand why you couldn't get QtCreator working. Qt is easy to install and use on Ubuntu. And the Qt QUI designer is very easy to work with.
As I heard it was a systemic problem back then: not all package dependencies were declared, meaning that after installation you have to also install bunch of other stuff to make it working. (Many years ago, first time I tried QtCreator, it actually refused to run, because some linked libraries were missing.)
I'm not sure about now, but back then it wasn't even close to anything RAD. It was only a helper to create the GUI in a XML form, which was back then not even properly integrated with the rest: one had to write some code manually to actually tell Qt what resource corresponds to the window. And add resource manually to the resource file.
I would say that Python + libglade + glade is also a pretty good combination. It's not quite the RAD experience you seem to want, but it is a fast and powerful way of developing GUI apps, thanks go a nice API and Python.
Yes, it is not RAD. And for that I already use QT + C++, which provides very powerful, simple and no-fuss API to build GUIs dynamically (without external UI building tools like glade or Qt Designer).
The problem is not me per se - I have no problems with most of the stuff. The problem are the other team-members who are not well versed as me in the scripting languages and building GUIs. On many past projects I have left behind lots of stuff which 95% of coworkers can't support or develop further. And I want to solve the problem by throwing in something that requires as least boilerplate as possible, stays as close to demos/examples as possible. I'm simply trying to find something to help the people start moving in the right direction.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Indeed. I have written several cross-platform Java apps and utilities that run just fine on Windows, Linux or Mac boxes. One can certainly write Java programs that are locked to one platform, but I've ever seen the need.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors.
Then you should have no problems finding a few examples that illustrates Microsofts visceral hatred of open source (your words).
... long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors
Fear!
Microsoft isn't trustworthy,
Uncertainty!
Why risk future woes when you have no need to?
Doubt!
As I suspected: Nothing but FUD. But pretty textbook FUD, that much I have to give you credit for.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Intel also contributes a lot of money to the foundation which employs Torvalds. Microsoft does no such thing.