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.
For RAD I've had some good experiences in the pas with RealBasic (renamed to Xojo some time ago). At the time the GNU/Linux support was quite ok but they haven't really kept up. 64 bit is still missing for example so running anything you build with it will require a couple of 32 bit system libraries to be installed.
Please don't compare apples to oranges. You are totally right about the trust issue, that's something personal. But it has very little to do with the C# language or .NET.
Pulling JVM into the equation not really helps either, cause the consequent question would be: Do you trust Oracle? Or Google, for that matter if you count Dalvik in.
I do like the C# as a language, having done a few smaller projects with it. The reason why i prefer not to use it is, indeed, because i don't trust or like Microsoft. Having said that, i am totally fine with the Mono project - despite all criticism it's just the language and the VM and has very little to do with MS, and when appropriate (i.e.: someone pays for it) i wouldn't hesitate to develop with Mono or .Net again.
GP totally has a point here: The languages you really need for a certain task already exist, whether it be C, C++, C#, Java and a handful of other niches including but not limited to Perl and PHP. Whatever your choice is, try stick to a steady platform. Code written in any such `proven` language is much more likely to compile in another 10-20 years from now than code written in some obscure actively-developed language which adds little, that couldn't be done otherwise, but headaches.
And AC above also has a point that many OS enthusiasts are guilty of exactly what they accuse their nemesis of. Hence he doesn't deserve the tag 'astroturfer', it may well be his honest opinion. It's totally ok to criticize, but be prepared to accept criticism too, please.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
well considering their 'mit license' is invalidated because of the wording saying you can't use without their engine or code... it kind of is a trap. Just a bad one.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
After looking at Mono I failed to see the point in the whole thing. Thats because it does not support the WPF. Since a large number of .NET applications are GUI, not having WPF pretty much destroys the value of Mono in allowing Windows .NET programs to run on Linux. Otherwise, there is no point in using Mono. If you have a .NET program written using WPF its not going to run on Mono. If you are writing a new program there is no reason to use Mono instead of another application language such as Ruby. Using a development environment designed by the Evil Empire does not hold special appeal over the FOSS plartforms such as Ruby. If one has to write a program that can run on both Windows and Linux i would probably be better to use Ruby or Python or such.
Why didnt Microsoft Open source the WPF. Instead, they open sourced the parts of .NET that Mono already had implementations of.
Microsoft has many times expressed its visceral hatred of open source. It is not to be trusted, not ten years ago, not five years not, not today, not ever.
BS again. Microsoft has NEVER expressed visceral hatred of open source. Ballmer has compared one open source license - GPL - with cancer, because of it's viral nature. The intentionally viral nature.
Ballmer is not at the helm any more. But even he never expressed hatred at open source, as you claim. You could construe his comments about GPL as hatred against that particular license type. And indeed, Microsoft has always opted for other OSI approved licenses when they had the choice.
But if you have any other sources for your made-up claim - say other MS top executives, maybe even present ones - then please feel free to post them.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Microsoft has not contributed any useful code to the Linux kernel. Their "contribution" was drivers so that Linux could work on their hypervisor. If you're not running a MS server with MS Hyper-V, then their contributions are useless to you.
Yeah, it's nice they're playing a little more nicely with Linux now, but don't pretend their "contribution" had any altruistic component to it at all, because it didn't. It was only done because customers were demanding that they be able to run Linux virtualized on MS systems. MS did the bare minimum needed to enable this, and that's it.
> Both C# and C++ offer low level functionality
Not really. Can you write a device driver in C#? How about a plain DLL? CLR is a VM. Its CPU performance is OK (2-8 times slower than C).
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.d...
But programs written on it have memory requirements that are higher than ones written in plain systems languages. The runtime footprint on the disk is also massive. I don't think you can really make a case that C# is a low-level language. It is not that much more CPU efficient than Java. Mono performance is worse than Java.
http://benchmarksgame.alioth.d...
Of course, CLR is better than dynamic language aka scripting language runtimes. But that's about it.