I still have my doubts on whether that is enough, though. Any non-trivial project will infringe somebody's patents. Mono or not, that problem will remain as long as your patent office refuses to be sane about granting patents.
A bit of history. Silverlight 1 is a joke as a product, Silverlight 2.0 is the real deal. To start with, Silverlight 1 does not have the CLR (.Net runtime), it was pretty much useless for anything complex. Even back when v1 was released, companies (and Microsoft itself) were releasing all the cool stuff in v2.0 alpha.
So mono never really had to chase v1, which had zero chances of succeeding. Which is probably why Mono is still at v1. However, getting v2.0 running would not be too difficult. It is mostly a scaled down.Net runtime, with some multimedia added.
And if you have ever used Mono, you would notice that they have a remarkably complete implementation of.Net, with compilers compatible with the newest from Microsoft.
That's a good argument, if all browsers had great javascript performance like the new Webkit builds or FF3.1 or Chrome.
Since 75% of the market uses _the_ IE, Flash (and Silverlight if ever) is the only way you can do fancy graphics. Say, even something simple as a fade effect without hitting 100% cpu.
The problem is that many communists identify free software as aligned with their communist ideals, since it is competing against the bourgeois American Microsoft Corporation and others. That simply isn't true, since Free software is about freedom and not fighting the capitalists.
I have lived in Kerala for 21 years, and found the communists the most despicable political group. What they try to do in infiltrate every movement or group, and try to push ideology.
We have full fledged political organizations, even in junior school (5th Grade! when students are 11 years old). They have "strikes" and "boycotts" in school, and it is just unbelievable.
Of course, if things don't work out the full "force" of the organization comes to play. That includes murder, and the police machinery.
I have never really supported the Boycott Novell thing, and still believe Novell makes a lot of contributions.
I feel sorry for my state, it is just a horrible mess now.
What I was saying is that the compiler converts code in an Expression-Tree. Here is a good article which explains this - C# 3.0 and LINQ - Expression Trees
And funny, IanG also mentions this in the post: "there has been a tendency to dismiss all the new features of C# 3.0 as 'syntactic sugar'. If you think this is another example, then I guess you probably feel the same way about assembly language, and feel that there haven't really been any significant coding innovations since the front panel with toggle switches".
Its pretty obvious this is the case, because there hasnt been any runtime changes to support anything functional... Well, the same instruction set and architecture that runs C code runs a LISP application as well. You don't need runtime changes to support functional languages - for example, F# works well on.Net and Mono and is a functional programming language.
LINQ is not exactly syntactic sugar. Because, the compiler can translate a LINQ query into an expression (somewhat like an s-expression) which can be parsed by the program (code as data).
Now that was not exactly something that was achievable earlier with C#. And it certainly is not achievable with method calls (again, because the code is just data - and not immediately executed.)
These concepts have existed for a long time in functional programming languages, but it is the first time they are appearing in a widely used language (other than scripting languages) with proper tooling support.
1. myspace.com (think 100m plus users) 2. orkut.com (35m users) 3. google docs (surprise!)
And as you said, Desktop applications are a rarity, because the current.Net runtimes (3.0 and later) are more that 100MB in size. So even if you are making a calculator, you end up with 100.1 megabytes of download. Not attractive.
I really do not understand why Net is not backwards compatible but I suppose at least I should be happy that the libraries can co-exist instead of the old DLL hell.
Most of the Asp.Net web applications run on.Net 2.0 (released in 2005). v1 is quickly fading away for reasons like performance and security. v2.0 (and later) apps and libraries are mostly not backwards compatible with 1.0 and 1.1, because of IL changes and new runtime features like generics..Net 3.0 is a set of libraries which run on the same CLR which shipped with.Net 2.0..Net 3.5 has new compilers for C# and VB.Net (with significant language enhancements) and new libraries like LINQ - which again run on the 2.0 runtime.
So barring the dependency on libraries 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 code should be byte-code compatible.
Well, it should be the first upgrade you should NOT have declined; at least for the new language enhancements in C# and VB (Like LINQ and lambda expressions). I did a large project recently, which used a fair amount of LINQ. I felt C# 3.0 is when it finally left Java lagging in expressiveness.
Btw, I have also been using Mono for some time now, and the present compiler implements all of C# 3.0 language enhancements.
Which would be great, if only someone had invented algorithms that could take advantage of that
I agree. Which is why I said 'eventually'. For now, perhaps 'subtle' compiler hints could be used (which can be ignored by compilers which don't support this). Programming functional style (and limiting side effects) makes this task easier.
Concurrency is another big win for interpreted (and to jit-ted code like Java) code. The compiler on the target machine gets to decide how to optimize the the code based on the number of processors.
So, _eventually_ C may be slower than JS/Python/Java.:)
And of course, as other pointed out the article says that JS is now getting compiled.
underlying client-side logic... the browser handle the View.... Controller exist somewhere else.... independent of the presentation layer.
I have to listen to this architectural BS two hours every day at work, you insensitive clod!
Joke aside, I read TFA - it is naive. Like, An external browser module capable of executing most of the proposed ECMAScript 4 specification already exists: It's the Adobe Flash plug-in. Other platforms are available as plug-ins, as well, including Curl and REBOL.
So, you mean build the site with flash? Btw, Curl and REBOL - what are you smoking! If the browser capabilities are so unpredictable, which baseline do I target? How many assumptions can I make?
But if sticking to a single way of doing things is what we want,.... at thousands of enterprises worldwide, right now. It's called Lotus Notes.
C++ vs Ruby, Python, 1. No REPL in c++. For a large project, it takes a while to try out an algorithm. 2. Generators && Closures && lambdas 3. Strong "reflection" capabilities too, which means that code can inspect, load and modify other code (in Java, C# too).
LISP and C# has the above, plus 1. Static Typing 2. LISP possible has the more generic syntax conceivable, and code can extend the language to suit the domain. A consequence of Code itself being Data. 3. Concurrency (one of those things 0x is supposed to solve) is simpler in a language which supports functional programming.
Do not think that people are complaining about C++ lacking garbage collection. The real problem is with the expressiveness.
I don't know if your comment was meant to be sarcastic, but:
Tiger had very limited 64-bit support (GUI apps ran in 32-bit mode). The fairly recent 10.5 is much better though.
In contrast, the Windows API's were well supported in 64-bit platforms since 2003. (Windows 2003 server, for IA-64 and later X64). While XP 64-bit was pointless, and soon discontinued, Windows APIs remain the same on Server and Client editions.
This would have allowed Adobe to start working on a 64-bit version anytime in the last 5 years.
That's pathetic. Adobe is explicitly trying to control the _format_, while trying to convince (and confuse) people by releasing the runtime and SDK as open source. Which means they still retail all the control of closed-source software, without many people even being aware of it. Once (hopefully not) AIR or Flash becomes a widely accepted platform for applications, Adobe can easily ask people to pay up or do whatever.
These days, I get frustrated by the number of people who mention that Adobe is a major supported of open source, and get excited about it. Java may suck, but it sure is not a lock in.
You are probably right. Microsoft should be worried that if Flash actually went Open (as in real open), innovative companies would start delivering really compelling, desktop-grade applications over the browser. There would be nothing stopping Google from putting up a better Microsoft Office. Or countless other innovative companies from killing the Windows platform.
Well.... if Flash went open that is. I have a feeling it might happen soon.
Well... depends on how you are able to fit this into your daily use.
I love my N800 ($400 when I bought it), which does a lot without having to carry a 3kg laptop. For instance: 0. Access the web at 800 pixels using Firefox w/Gecko(runs Javascript just like ur other box) 1. SSH into the web servers i manage. 2. 8GB of music (though it can hold 16GB) 3. email, skype 4. write python and mono programs 5. Watch videos
With the 810 (another $100), you get GPS, a new proc etc.
So depending on how you use it - it could be easier and therefore better than your 6 pound laptop.
Furthermore, with Java becoming free as in free will, I don't see how free software benefits by having VB,.Net or any other Microsoft born encumbrance.
Because Java is being increasingly inefficient as a programming language these days. Meanwhile C# has some very forward looking language designers. At a time when statically typed languages are under attack from the more expressive dynamic languages (and rightly so), continuous innovation is the only way to stay relevant.
One of the ways for doing so is to include/introduce: 1. Type inference 2. Anonymous classes/methods 3. Functional Programming constructs (the whole shebang) 4. Expressions (code as data)
C# 3.0 is well on the way to getting there. Mono C# compiler already includes experimental support for C# 3.0. And the basic runtime and the C# language, is patent free (ECMA standard). From what I have seen, C# 3.0 lets you write more expressive, concise code.
Reporting live from India: We still have a _lot_ of customers (like 30-40%) asking us to develop on VB.Net, since they have maintainers who are well-versed in VB. Microsoft has effectively marketed VB.Net as being easier to swallow for VB Programmers. This is true, since VB.Net has constructs which allow the same inefficient VB style coding. But if proper OO practices are being followed, VB.Net is just C# without case-sensitivity.
Mono supporting VB.Net allows these people to target Linux. Mono's C# compiler, BCL(Base Class Lib) and Asp.Net implementation has reached a stage where most projects run _without changes_ on.Net and Mono. Only calls into COM libraries and Windows native DLLs are requiring code rewrites for Linux.
I am wondering if it would be possible for someone (or company) in the US to preemptively approach the courts to force Microsoft to disclose the patents which are supposedly infringed by Linux.
The US patent system is one of the stumbling blocks to innovation in computing these days. Even for us who live elsewhere.
Say, H1-Bs are required for cutting costs; and not due to lack of talent in the US. Even then... 1. No H1-B, means higher costs for US Companies 2. US Companies compete locally (inside US), and globally with Global Companies 3. So US Companies' have a higher cost of product development or software services, compared to those from outside (which employ cheaper labor) 4..... 5..... 6. Profit! (BUT HOW??!!)
An alternative is to ship most of the development or services lifecycle outside, so that H1-Bs are not needed anymore. This is even worse for the US, isn't it? The money wouldn't even get spent in the US. That is, "offshoring" or "bangaloring"
As they say, treat the disease, not the symptom. Reducing work permits is not the answer.
To be successful, one thing you need is the 'Freedom to make mistakes'.
Perhaps Novell made one, perhaps it did not; it depends on your perspective. But should that one action cause such wide-spread criticism, and calls to abandon the distro and the developers who worked behind it? Even while I have no comment on whether the Novell-MS deal was appropriate, I feel such a reaction is very sad. Is Open Source so fragile?? A fully commercial vendor meanwhile can make its mistakes, learn from it, correct it, move on.
For all the work the guys at Novell have put in (Gnome, Mono,....) this certainly is silly.
I have been a SUSE user for many years now, and _personally_ I find it the best. I have never really contributed to openSUSE, now I am thinking about how I can help the team in any small way I can.
Slashdot Mirror
Moonlight is LGPL, MIT X11.
Linux users are also protected by this covenant specific to Moonlight.
I still have my doubts on whether that is enough, though. Any non-trivial project will infringe somebody's patents. Mono or not, that problem will remain as long as your patent office refuses to be sane about granting patents.
A bit of history. Silverlight 1 is a joke as a product, Silverlight 2.0 is the real deal. To start with, Silverlight 1 does not have the CLR (.Net runtime), it was pretty much useless for anything complex. Even back when v1 was released, companies (and Microsoft itself) were releasing all the cool stuff in v2.0 alpha.
So mono never really had to chase v1, which had zero chances of succeeding. Which is probably why Mono is still at v1. However, getting v2.0 running would not be too difficult. It is mostly a scaled down .Net runtime, with some multimedia added.
And if you have ever used Mono, you would notice that they have a remarkably complete implementation of .Net, with compilers compatible with the newest from Microsoft.
That's a good argument, if all browsers had great javascript performance like the new Webkit builds or FF3.1 or Chrome.
Since 75% of the market uses _the_ IE, Flash (and Silverlight if ever) is the only way you can do fancy graphics. Say, even something simple as a fade effect without hitting 100% cpu.
The problem is that many communists identify free software as aligned with their communist ideals, since it is competing against the bourgeois American Microsoft Corporation and others. That simply isn't true, since Free software is about freedom and not fighting the capitalists.
I have lived in Kerala for 21 years, and found the communists the most despicable political group. What they try to do in infiltrate every movement or group, and try to push ideology.
We have full fledged political organizations, even in junior school (5th Grade! when students are 11 years old). They have "strikes" and "boycotts" in school, and it is just unbelievable.
Of course, if things don't work out the full "force" of the organization comes to play. That includes murder, and the police machinery.
I have never really supported the Boycott Novell thing, and still believe Novell makes a lot of contributions.
I feel sorry for my state, it is just a horrible mess now.
What I was saying is that the compiler converts code in an Expression-Tree. Here is a good article which explains this - C# 3.0 and LINQ - Expression Trees
And funny, IanG also mentions this in the post:
"there has been a tendency to dismiss all the new features of C# 3.0 as 'syntactic sugar'. If you think this is another example, then I guess you probably feel the same way about assembly language, and feel that there haven't really been any significant coding innovations since the front panel with toggle switches".
Its pretty obvious this is the case, because there hasnt been any runtime changes to support anything functional... .Net and Mono and is a functional programming language.
Well, the same instruction set and architecture that runs C code runs a LISP application as well. You don't need runtime changes to support functional languages - for example, F# works well on
I hope you know that you are trolling.
LINQ is not exactly syntactic sugar. Because, the compiler can translate a LINQ query into an expression (somewhat like an s-expression) which can be parsed by the program (code as data).
Now that was not exactly something that was achievable earlier with C#. And it certainly is not achievable with method calls (again, because the code is just data - and not immediately executed.)
These concepts have existed for a long time in functional programming languages, but it is the first time they are appearing in a widely used language (other than scripting languages) with proper tooling support.
You are right. Here are some.
1. myspace.com (think 100m plus users)
2. orkut.com (35m users)
3. google docs (surprise!)
And as you said, Desktop applications are a rarity, because the current .Net runtimes (3.0 and later) are more that 100MB in size. So even if you are making a calculator, you end up with 100.1 megabytes of download. Not attractive.
I really do not understand why Net is not backwards compatible but I suppose at least I should be happy that the libraries can co-exist instead of the old DLL hell.
Most of the Asp.Net web applications run on .Net 2.0 (released in 2005). v1 is quickly fading away for reasons like performance and security. v2.0 (and later) apps and libraries are mostly not backwards compatible with 1.0 and 1.1, because of IL changes and new runtime features like generics. .Net 3.0 is a set of libraries which run on the same CLR which shipped with .Net 2.0. .Net 3.5 has new compilers for C# and VB.Net (with significant language enhancements) and new libraries like LINQ - which again run on the 2.0 runtime.
So barring the dependency on libraries 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 code should be byte-code compatible.
Well, it should be the first upgrade you should NOT have declined; at least for the new language enhancements in C# and VB (Like LINQ and lambda expressions). I did a large project recently, which used a fair amount of LINQ. I felt C# 3.0 is when it finally left Java lagging in expressiveness.
Btw, I have also been using Mono for some time now, and the present compiler implements all of C# 3.0 language enhancements.
Also, knowing java allows you to learn C# very, very quickly, and then you can decide for yourself which language you like better.
That used to be true, but - not - anymore.
I am not interested in commenting on this thread, just wanted to dispel the notion that C# is still a Java clone.
Which would be great, if only someone had invented algorithms that could take advantage of that
I agree. Which is why I said 'eventually'. For now, perhaps 'subtle' compiler hints could be used (which can be ignored by compilers which don't support this). Programming functional style (and limiting side effects) makes this task easier.
Concurrency is another big win for interpreted (and to jit-ted code like Java) code. The compiler on the target machine gets to decide how to optimize the the code based on the number of processors.
So, _eventually_ C may be slower than JS/Python/Java. :)
And of course, as other pointed out the article says that JS is now getting compiled.
underlying client-side logic... the browser handle the View.... Controller exist somewhere else.... independent of the presentation layer.
I have to listen to this architectural BS two hours every day at work, you insensitive clod!
Joke aside, I read TFA - it is naive.
Like, An external browser module capable of executing most of the proposed ECMAScript 4 specification already exists: It's the Adobe Flash plug-in. Other platforms are available as plug-ins, as well, including Curl and REBOL.
So, you mean build the site with flash? Btw, Curl and REBOL - what are you smoking! If the browser capabilities are so unpredictable, which baseline do I target? How many assumptions can I make?
But if sticking to a single way of doing things is what we want, .... at thousands of enterprises worldwide, right now. It's called Lotus Notes.
God.
Let's see what C++ is missing.
C++ vs Ruby, Python,
1. No REPL in c++. For a large project, it takes a while to try out an algorithm.
2. Generators && Closures && lambdas
3. Strong "reflection" capabilities too, which means that code can inspect, load and modify other code (in Java, C# too).
LISP and C# has the above, plus
1. Static Typing
2. LISP possible has the more generic syntax conceivable, and code can extend the language to suit the domain. A consequence of Code itself being Data.
3. Concurrency (one of those things 0x is supposed to solve) is simpler in a language which supports functional programming.
Do not think that people are complaining about C++ lacking garbage collection. The real problem is with the expressiveness.
Ever since I started appreciating Damien Hirst, it has not been really difficult for me to see art in its most concealed form.
Even in this convoluted post of mine. And in the way you will mod me. You just need an open mind.
This 64bit issue is no one's fault except Adobe who have had nearly a decade's warning that they needed to move from Carbon to Cocoa.
Except that the first OS X version with true 64-bit support was unavailable until a few _months_ back.
I don't know if your comment was meant to be sarcastic, but:
Tiger had very limited 64-bit support (GUI apps ran in 32-bit mode). The fairly recent 10.5 is much better though.
In contrast, the Windows API's were well supported in 64-bit platforms since 2003. (Windows 2003 server, for IA-64 and later X64). While XP 64-bit was pointless, and soon discontinued, Windows APIs remain the same on Server and Client editions.
This would have allowed Adobe to start working on a 64-bit version anytime in the last 5 years.
From the SWF and FLV File Format Specification and License
-- This license does not permit the usage of the specification to create software which supports SWF file playback.
That's pathetic. Adobe is explicitly trying to control the _format_, while trying to convince (and confuse) people by releasing the runtime and SDK as open source. Which means they still retail all the control of closed-source software, without many people even being aware of it. Once (hopefully not) AIR or Flash becomes a widely accepted platform for applications, Adobe can easily ask people to pay up or do whatever.
These days, I get frustrated by the number of people who mention that Adobe is a major supported of open source, and get excited about it. Java may suck, but it sure is not a lock in.
You are probably right. Microsoft should be worried that if Flash actually went Open (as in real open), innovative companies would start delivering really compelling, desktop-grade applications over the browser. There would be nothing stopping Google from putting up a better Microsoft Office. Or countless other innovative companies from killing the Windows platform.
.... if Flash went open that is. I have a feeling it might happen soon.
Well
Well ... depends on how you are able to fit this into your daily use.
I love my N800 ($400 when I bought it), which does a lot without having to carry a 3kg laptop.
For instance:
0. Access the web at 800 pixels using Firefox w/Gecko(runs Javascript just like ur other box)
1. SSH into the web servers i manage.
2. 8GB of music (though it can hold 16GB)
3. email, skype
4. write python and mono programs
5. Watch videos
With the 810 (another $100), you get GPS, a new proc etc.
So depending on how you use it - it could be easier and therefore better than your 6 pound laptop.
Furthermore, with Java becoming free as in free will, I don't see how free software benefits by having VB, .Net or any other Microsoft born encumbrance.
Because Java is being increasingly inefficient as a programming language these days. Meanwhile C# has some very forward looking language designers. At a time when statically typed languages are under attack from the more expressive dynamic languages (and rightly so), continuous innovation is the only way to stay relevant.
One of the ways for doing so is to include/introduce:
1. Type inference
2. Anonymous classes/methods
3. Functional Programming constructs (the whole shebang)
4. Expressions (code as data)
C# 3.0 is well on the way to getting there. Mono C# compiler already includes experimental support for C# 3.0. And the basic runtime and the C# language, is patent free (ECMA standard). From what I have seen, C# 3.0 lets you write more expressive, concise code.
Reporting live from India:
.Net and Mono. Only calls into COM libraries and Windows native DLLs are requiring code rewrites for Linux.
We still have a _lot_ of customers (like 30-40%) asking us to develop on VB.Net, since they have maintainers who are well-versed in VB. Microsoft has effectively marketed VB.Net as being easier to swallow for VB Programmers. This is true, since VB.Net has constructs which allow the same inefficient VB style coding. But if proper OO practices are being followed, VB.Net is just C# without case-sensitivity.
Mono supporting VB.Net allows these people to target Linux. Mono's C# compiler, BCL(Base Class Lib) and Asp.Net implementation has reached a stage where most projects run _without changes_ on
So, I would say - There is a point.
I am wondering if it would be possible for someone (or company) in the US to preemptively approach the courts to force Microsoft to disclose the patents which are supposedly infringed by Linux.
The US patent system is one of the stumbling blocks to innovation in computing these days. Even for us who live elsewhere.
Say, H1-Bs are required for cutting costs; and not due to lack of talent in the US. Even then... .... ....
1. No H1-B, means higher costs for US Companies
2. US Companies compete locally (inside US), and globally with Global Companies
3. So US Companies' have a higher cost of product development or software services, compared to those from outside (which employ cheaper labor)
4.
5.
6. Profit! (BUT HOW??!!)
An alternative is to ship most of the development or services lifecycle outside, so that H1-Bs are not needed anymore. This is even worse for the US, isn't it? The money wouldn't even get spent in the US. That is, "offshoring" or "bangaloring"
As they say, treat the disease, not the symptom. Reducing work permits is not the answer.
To be successful, one thing you need is the 'Freedom to make mistakes'.
....) this certainly is silly.
Perhaps Novell made one, perhaps it did not; it depends on your perspective. But should that one action cause such wide-spread criticism, and calls to abandon the distro and the developers who worked behind it? Even while I have no comment on whether the Novell-MS deal was appropriate, I feel such a reaction is very sad. Is Open Source so fragile?? A fully commercial vendor meanwhile can make its mistakes, learn from it, correct it, move on.
For all the work the guys at Novell have put in (Gnome, Mono,
I have been a SUSE user for many years now, and _personally_ I find it the best. I have never really contributed to openSUSE, now I am thinking about how I can help the team in any small way I can.