Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reasons To Use Mono For Linux Development

Posted by samzenpus on from the best-tools-for-the-job dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes: In the eleven years since Mono first appeared, the Linux community has regarded it with suspicion. Because Mono is basically a free, open-source implementation of Microsoft's .NET framework, some developers feared that Microsoft would eventually launch a patent war that could harm many in the open-source community. But there are some good reasons for using Mono, developer David Bolton argues in a new blog posting. Chief among them is MonoDevelop, which he claims is an excellent IDE; it's cross-platform abilities; and its utility as a game-development platform. That might not ease everybody's concerns (and some people really don't like how Xamarin has basically commercialized Mono as an iOS/Android development platform), but it's maybe enough for some people to take another look at the platform.

12 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. If there are patent issues by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You just shouldn't bother. It's not worth the risk.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: If there are patent issues by jhoger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except it's not a shitty language. WTF are you talking about? It's basically a better Java. And it has some innovative stuff like LINQ.

    2. Re:If there are patent issues by bondsbw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember VB? . . . But then MS came out with VB.net . . . it was really an entirely new language.

      You mean, the better language capable of running on the .NET CLR and utilizing the same set of proven, well-tested libraries available for all .NET languages? Getting that with a very low learning curve for existing VB developers?

      Remember that VB 6 never actually died. It just stopped being improved. If you moved your app from VB 6 to VB.NET, that was your own choice for your own reasons... but let's be clear, it wasn't because suddenly your app stopped working or you couldn't maintain it.

      Remember Silverlight? The "Flash Killer"

      Actually HTML5, with the iPhone as a catalyst, killed both Flash and Silverlight. It's interesting that you don't blame Adobe for killing Flash as you blame Microsoft for killing Silverlight.

      Remember Windows Phone 7? The next big thing (tm) and they ditched it, for WP8, and all the devs were screwed.

      Most WP7 apps could run just fine on WP8. And the changes from WP7 to WP8 were relatively minor; same language, updated (but not completely backwards compatible) APIs.

      Why is the XBox 360 not compatible with the original XBox? Why is the XBox "One" not compatible with the XBox 360?

      Because the architectures were different between original XBox and the 360, and between the 360 and Xbox One. By definition the only way to achieve binary compatibility is through virtualization, which is exactly what Microsoft has done in both cases.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  2. Why? by binarylarry · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why use a Java clone instead of just using Java?

    I suppose there's the Oracle factor which sucks. But Mono is by Microsoft, so it's just as bad.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Why? by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hate to say it, but given the choice between ORACLE and Microsoft.. Fuck Oracle.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    2. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, Eclipse is just such a piece of junk...

      Oh wait, it isn't, and it's written in Java.

      Or to put it another way, fuck off MS shill. Java has had responsive GUI libraries for a decade now.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. We'll See by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I have never work in C# myself, the ability stop code in a debugger, write some code, and then continue executing (compiling your code in real-time) seemed like a really awesome feature (as a C++ guy, we don't get to do this).

    The Unity engine is also quite popular and an increasingly popular choice is C# for use with it.

    Maybe Microsoft can make one useful invention every decade?;)

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:We'll See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      the ability stop code in a debugger, write some code, and then continue executing

      I've done that in assembler some 30 years ago, insert jump into free memory add code there plus a jump back...

    2. Re:We'll See by Megane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (as a C++ guy, we don't get to do this)

      That's because you aren't using Clang. One of the reasons Apple ditched GCC was so that they could get live recompile for Xcode.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:We'll See by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe, but you can do this in Eclipse these days too, in Java. Its not really all that unique.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    4. Re:We'll See by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is an IDE feature, not a language feature. VS can do it for C++ as well, by the way. But there's nothing stopping someone from implementing it for Java.

  4. Re:No, it's not enough by penguin7of9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently "we" don't have a long memory of Sun/Oracle's past behavior: Sun's repeated lies about making Java an open standard, their legal threats and lawsuits, the way they killed off independent implementations, and most recently, Oracle suing the pants of Google again. Microsoft played hardball on the business side, but Sun and Oracle have been dishonest, deceptive, and litigious. In the end, Java is both technically inferior and legally more risky than C#.