I understand that it looks stupid, but knowing the way that MS think about these things (IE from the myriad blogs) it will be likely that they didn't want to introduce incompatibility between the behavior of 32bit and 64bit.Net.
Totally practical, I can see my elderly parents doing that, *and* the rest of the technophobic population of this hexadecimal-thinking 16 fingered planet on which we live:)
I actually agree but the the devils advocate in me says, if they did release this data in escrow, so to speak, the media wouldn't pay the attention it has done so far.
But yeah, it sucks badly that these so-called-hackers have publicly released innocent peoples docs.
There are many ways around this, interfaces, strategy factory and repository patterns, he'll even dynamic keyword or il rewriting solutions a lá Jon skeet or even code weaving with AOP solutions.
Mono is *not* an implementation of.NET, it's an implementation of the CLI.
However, they've already stated that WPF can't work under linux, fair enough... but from my own experience, I've not authored one piece of.NET software in the last 2 years that needs WPF; I'm pretty sure that no-one in my team has.
Clearly, I'm not the only.NET developer in the world so I welcome your citations...
Erm, Have you actually tried to deploy a.net application recently ?
Other then ensuring that the framework is installed, it is also generally as simple as copying a.exe file.
ClickOnce deployment is vaguely more complicated but its complexities exist to counter security problems. One can hardly blame MS for trying to be a bit more proactive about security either.
The largest (in terms of distribution).NET program I've ever written had a target audience of roughly 40k computers. Our deployment process ? xcopy or download an MSI file if you weren't on the network.
Mono does have issues, that's true enough. Microsoft's.Net runtime has issues too. Linux has issues, Windows has issues... Everything has issues!
The problem with Mono isn't mono itself (imvho) it's the fact that it's bringing a Microsoft mentality to the GNU mindset and for some people, there can be no compromise on this. That the FSF itself 'discourages' use of Mono can't help matters.
What I'm trying to get at really is that a lot of the negativity towards mono is based on its philosophy and roots, rather then it's technical merit.
Shame really, I'd hoped we were all passed that. Naive, I know!
Slashdot Mirror
Haha :)
I understand that it looks stupid, but knowing the way that MS think about these things (IE from the myriad blogs) it will be likely that they didn't want to introduce incompatibility between the behavior of 32bit and 64bit .Net.
If you're looking for a real answer though, you could do worse then hit up Raymond Chen's blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/.
38.5Gb for a driver ? I'd complain!
Just for arguments sake (:P) Please expand on your reasoning that the .NET API (I presume you meant to say the .NET Framework) is 'dreadful' ?
I've been programming with it since it was released; and what ever epithet I could care to use; Dreadful is not amongst them.
On a related note, I recall an amazing flash demo from around the same time, it was called Ray Of Light.
Does anyone have an archive of that somewhere? I remember it had an interesting font where all the vowels were underlined.
I'll stab his b@stard face!
+1 truth.
This adds a whole new meaning to the term 'Ginger ninja'.
I personally like C!!
And then next year we can be more excited and call it C!1!
Thank you, I will check that out.
However, I have noticed improvements in CodeSearch recently, perhaps the'll save this one ...
Oh please don't let them take this offline!
Totally practical, I can see my elderly parents doing that, *and* the rest of the technophobic population of this hexadecimal-thinking 16 fingered planet on which we live :)
I actually agree but the the devils advocate in me says, if they did release this data in escrow, so to speak, the media wouldn't pay the attention it has done so far.
But yeah, it sucks badly that these so-called-hackers have publicly released innocent peoples docs.
As a .net implementation, Mono is actually very complete:
http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
Which are these essential parts of which you speak?
There are many ways around this, interfaces, strategy factory and repository patterns, he'll even dynamic keyword or il rewriting solutions a lá Jon skeet or even code weaving with AOP solutions.
Although, as you've just posted with your /. handle; you're arguably *not* Anonymous.
I understand what you meant to say; however what you said is different.
Hate to use this line, but please; mod parent up.
I'm convinced anyone who's missing parents point is doing so purposefully.
Good luck brother, I'm personally hoping this turns out to be not such a big deal.
They've refocused SUSE and Mono back to europe; let us hope it doesn't kill the momentum.
Mono is *not* an implementation of .NET, it's an implementation of the CLI.
However, they've already stated that WPF can't work under linux, fair enough ... but from my own experience, I've not authored one piece of .NET software in the last 2 years that needs WPF; I'm pretty sure that no-one in my team has.
Clearly, I'm not the only .NET developer in the world so I welcome your citations ...
You probably know this, but the OP you're quoting just wholesale copied RMSs FSF statement on .NET (linky: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono)
I agree with you entirely though, it's FUD.
Erm, Have you actually tried to deploy a .net application recently ?
Other then ensuring that the framework is installed, it is also generally as simple as copying a .exe file.
ClickOnce deployment is vaguely more complicated but its complexities exist to counter security problems. One can hardly blame MS for trying to be a bit more proactive about security either.
The largest (in terms of distribution) .NET program I've ever written had a target audience of roughly 40k computers. Our deployment process ? xcopy or download an MSI file if you weren't on the network.
Which parts of the standard are you referring too ?
Mono does have issues, that's true enough. Microsoft's .Net runtime has issues too. ... Everything has issues!
Linux has issues, Windows has issues
The problem with Mono isn't mono itself (imvho) it's the fact that it's bringing a Microsoft mentality to the GNU mindset and for some people, there can be no compromise on this. That the FSF itself 'discourages' use of Mono can't help matters.
What I'm trying to get at really is that a lot of the negativity towards mono is based on its philosophy and roots, rather then it's technical merit.
Shame really, I'd hoped we were all passed that. Naive, I know!
So one instance of a bug makes the entire thing bad news ?
If that's your tolerance level for using a computer, then perhaps you'd be better with an abacus :)
Then I hope that this all 'comes out in the wash' then.