Mono is certainly interesting for the mobile market; especially given that you can target the two big platforms, Android and iOS, and be relatively sure everything will work more or less consistently, given that you're using Mono in both places; if anything, you'd have to make accommodating changes for Windows Phone, to account for subtle differences between Mono and native.Net. Assuming you target the major platforms first, that is.
For the desktop market, you're likely targeting Windows first if you're going.Net, which means portability is likely an afterthought, if it's a thought at all. On top of that, your choices are more or less to bundle the runtime or hope the end user has the correct version installed; less than ideal in most consumer use cases. With Java, you can be fairly certain that at least JDK 6 is available (currently supported versions of OSX ship with Java 1.6 installed by default, for example) and a newer release of Java will maintain the correct behavior (save for cosmetic things, like better font rendering in 1.7) for the JDK requested.
Factor in the second-largest userbase (where Java is, in fact, installed by default), not just the largest and smallest. Your numbers are skewed. What, exactly, is your target client base? Looks like Windows-only, to me.
Of course you know a Windows-specific feature isn't going to be there. What you don't know is how differently (and how subtly different and, thus, difficult or impossible to track down) the parts that *are* implemented will be. You must develop for cross-platform projects, my friend.
The user, who ends up with several hundred megabytes of libraries for *each* of those installed versions, and likely multiple identical versions (e.g. wasted space) certainly doesn't win in this scenario. Just sayin'
Well, the numbering system should be obvious. Windows, #1, has the largest userbase, Mac, #2, has the 2nd largest, and Linux, #3, is, well, #3 in that regard. Follow? Anyone who is writing an app with cross-platform support surely cares about the largest and smallest of those groups and, likely, also cares aboiut the groups in-between therefore, they care about Mac users, as well.
But, I see that you're just another AC troll. Carry on, good sir.
We're not talking about Dalvik, we're talking about Java. If I code against JDK 1.7, I know that anyone with Java 7 installed will have the same experience. I also know it won't run on Android, and I don't care; and if I so, I'll port to Dalvik.
.Net isn't consistent from one version to another, either, so I might be missing your point. You target a version of the Java API just like you target a version of the.Net API; the difference being that you can trust the implementation of a given version of the Java API to remain consistent across platforms, whereas on non-Windows platforms, how consistently a given version of the.Net API will be implemented depends on which version of Mono the user has installed.
I'm sorry, but I prefer to be able to debug my application against a known system, rather than an array of unknowns.
You just have to look at the windows install base.
As cross-platform development was the crux of my argument, no, I don't have to look at the windows install base; I'm considering Linux and OSX users, here.
As for other platforms I don't really see the issue especially of apps can bundle the Mono framework with application installations.
That's par for the course in Window-land, but nowhere else.
No argument re: trust and values, but that's the idealistic viewpoint I already said I agreed with, not the logical viewpoint nobody seems to be able to poke any holes in.
There's a gap between "ridiculous good" and "perfect" that's simply too big, just by the way of its existence. Add to that, most consumer users will have Java installed already; how many will have Mono? Not such an issue if you're talking about Windows users, as they'll likely have the.Net libs installed already, and the smallest subset of desktop users, desktop Linux users, will be able to fetch Mono from their distro's repository (and hopefully it's a recent version), so the #1 and #3 groups are covered. The #2 group, however... You don't expect the average Mac user to track down the Mac port of Mono, do you? And I'm asking this as a Mac user.
Until it's there by default, It's simply unacceptable for consumer software.
And the implementation is 100%? Nope. With Java, though, I get everything Java has to offer, anywhere Java is available. Maybe platform consistency isn't important to you, but it matters to some people.
From a purely logical standpoint, Java wins if you don't want to have to double-check whether each of the APIs you're about to use is actually implemented on all of your target platforms. From an idealistic standpoint, yes, I can see why someone would avoid Java (and, in fact, I have managed to do so for the entirety of my career, thus far), which is why the Mono projects exists, and why it is important. However, it's just not there yet, from a logical perspective.
Well... I think it's perfectly reasonable. You'd be completely amazed at the number of people who think it's perfectly legal. Those people will potentially become paying customers as a result of this. And for people who don't care? Well, you're not gonna convert them, anyway; best not to waste time and money trying.
Had you had a gun of your own, what would you have done?
Answered elsewhere in the thread.
Why am I not being robbed on a daily basis if the big bad government is making me so vulnerable with those gun control laws?
Because Canadians are generally awesome-nice people. No, seriously, I gave some real thought to becoming a Canadian citizen back in the early 2000's because I saw the writing on the wall for this country; at the time, though, I would have been more of a burden than a benefit, and now I have a wife who's happy where we are.
I never said one was better than the other, I just said it would have happened more than twice. To a crackhead looking for his next fix, no, jail time doesn't act as much of a deterrent; but, I'll follow your logic anyway, in the light of the point I was actually trying to make. I didn't get shot, stabbed, beaten, knocked out, or even tickled during either robbery. I was probably very lucky for that. Would that have been the case for robbery #3? I have no clue and neither do you. Maybe, in a gun-free society, robbery #3 would be the one that got me a blade through the kidney.
I'm good, thanks.
Please see my other posts in this thread for some real-life data about the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.
Rather than answer the same stupid question a hundred times, I'll simply ask that you read the entire thread. It's been answered.
You're also missing the point about the possibility of the victim being armed being a deterrent.
And no, the fact is that every country that has enacted a gun ban when their citizens already widely owned guns saw a sharp increase in violent crime, not just gun-related crimes, but all violent crime, across the board. And rather than answer all the "it works in Austrailia/New Zealand" people who are also going to chime in, I'll do that here, as well. No. You can't tell me a gun ban is working where there is no gun ban.
If you really don't believe there's a correlation between people possibly being able to defend themselves and criminals thinking twice before committing a violent crime, just look at Switzerland. On of the highest gun ownership rates and lowest violent crime rates in the world. I also fully agree with mandatory weapons training; it's just as important top know when and how to use your protection weapon as it is to actually have it.
Considering that in the first instance, I saw my assailant running at me from across an empty parking lot (as I was leaving work at 11:00 at night), he would have been stopped dead, possibly quite literally, in his tracks. Furthermore...
I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.
That was intended to be read as: When criminals (who already have guns) know the average law-abiding citizen is, beyond a doubt, unarmed, what is left to stop them from attacking at random? Nothing; that's what.
I wanted my gun for target practice, not even for self defense, even after being robbed twice at gunpoint. My solution to the robbery problem was to move out of the ghetto. The CCW is mostly a benefit to me when my buddy wants to meet up at the range to put holes in targets and I just so happen to be closer to the range than I am to home, and I sincerely hope that never changes (e.g. I hope I never have to take aim at a living thing). But, that all boils down to "I want a gun". Am I unfit to own one?
Having been robbed at gunpoint twice, I fully support legal gun ownership. Neither of the guns that have been held to my head were legally purchased, and I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.
Yes, I am now armed. CC permit and I do carry. I hope to never need it, but I'll be damned if you're gonna take it away from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Mono is certainly interesting for the mobile market; especially given that you can target the two big platforms, Android and iOS, and be relatively sure everything will work more or less consistently, given that you're using Mono in both places; if anything, you'd have to make accommodating changes for Windows Phone, to account for subtle differences between Mono and native .Net. Assuming you target the major platforms first, that is.
.Net, which means portability is likely an afterthought, if it's a thought at all. On top of that, your choices are more or less to bundle the runtime or hope the end user has the correct version installed; less than ideal in most consumer use cases. With Java, you can be fairly certain that at least JDK 6 is available (currently supported versions of OSX ship with Java 1.6 installed by default, for example) and a newer release of Java will maintain the correct behavior (save for cosmetic things, like better font rendering in 1.7) for the JDK requested.
For the desktop market, you're likely targeting Windows first if you're going
I think we might be on the same page, overall.
Factor in the second-largest userbase (where Java is, in fact, installed by default), not just the largest and smallest. Your numbers are skewed. What, exactly, is your target client base? Looks like Windows-only, to me.
Of course you know a Windows-specific feature isn't going to be there. What you don't know is how differently (and how subtly different and, thus, difficult or impossible to track down) the parts that *are* implemented will be. You must develop for cross-platform projects, my friend.
Everyone wins.
The user, who ends up with several hundred megabytes of libraries for *each* of those installed versions, and likely multiple identical versions (e.g. wasted space) certainly doesn't win in this scenario. Just sayin'
Well, the numbering system should be obvious. Windows, #1, has the largest userbase, Mac, #2, has the 2nd largest, and Linux, #3, is, well, #3 in that regard. Follow? Anyone who is writing an app with cross-platform support surely cares about the largest and smallest of those groups and, likely, also cares aboiut the groups in-between therefore, they care about Mac users, as well.
But, I see that you're just another AC troll. Carry on, good sir.
We're not talking about Dalvik, we're talking about Java. If I code against JDK 1.7, I know that anyone with Java 7 installed will have the same experience. I also know it won't run on Android, and I don't care; and if I so, I'll port to Dalvik.
.Net isn't consistent from one version to another, either, so I might be missing your point. You target a version of the Java API just like you target a version of the .Net API; the difference being that you can trust the implementation of a given version of the Java API to remain consistent across platforms, whereas on non-Windows platforms, how consistently a given version of the .Net API will be implemented depends on which version of Mono the user has installed.
I'm sorry, but I prefer to be able to debug my application against a known system, rather than an array of unknowns.
You just have to look at the windows install base.
As cross-platform development was the crux of my argument, no, I don't have to look at the windows install base; I'm considering Linux and OSX users, here.
As for other platforms I don't really see the issue especially of apps can bundle the Mono framework with application installations.
That's par for the course in Window-land, but nowhere else.
No argument re: trust and values, but that's the idealistic viewpoint I already said I agreed with, not the logical viewpoint nobody seems to be able to poke any holes in.
There's a gap between "ridiculous good" and "perfect" that's simply too big, just by the way of its existence. Add to that, most consumer users will have Java installed already; how many will have Mono? Not such an issue if you're talking about Windows users, as they'll likely have the .Net libs installed already, and the smallest subset of desktop users, desktop Linux users, will be able to fetch Mono from their distro's repository (and hopefully it's a recent version), so the #1 and #3 groups are covered. The #2 group, however... You don't expect the average Mac user to track down the Mac port of Mono, do you? And I'm asking this as a Mac user.
Until it's there by default, It's simply unacceptable for consumer software.
And the implementation is 100%? Nope. With Java, though, I get everything Java has to offer, anywhere Java is available. Maybe platform consistency isn't important to you, but it matters to some people.
From a purely logical standpoint, Java wins if you don't want to have to double-check whether each of the APIs you're about to use is actually implemented on all of your target platforms. From an idealistic standpoint, yes, I can see why someone would avoid Java (and, in fact, I have managed to do so for the entirety of my career, thus far), which is why the Mono projects exists, and why it is important. However, it's just not there yet, from a logical perspective.
Sure, if your entire userbase is on Windows.
Well... I think it's perfectly reasonable. You'd be completely amazed at the number of people who think it's perfectly legal. Those people will potentially become paying customers as a result of this. And for people who don't care? Well, you're not gonna convert them, anyway; best not to waste time and money trying.
Correlation is not causation.
Well, yes, that's part of not existing, isn't it?
You assume a lot... read the rest of the thread.
Had you had a gun of your own, what would you have done?
Answered elsewhere in the thread.
Why am I not being robbed on a daily basis if the big bad government is making me so vulnerable with those gun control laws?
Because Canadians are generally awesome-nice people. No, seriously, I gave some real thought to becoming a Canadian citizen back in the early 2000's because I saw the writing on the wall for this country; at the time, though, I would have been more of a burden than a benefit, and now I have a wife who's happy where we are.
I never said one was better than the other, I just said it would have happened more than twice. To a crackhead looking for his next fix, no, jail time doesn't act as much of a deterrent; but, I'll follow your logic anyway, in the light of the point I was actually trying to make. I didn't get shot, stabbed, beaten, knocked out, or even tickled during either robbery. I was probably very lucky for that. Would that have been the case for robbery #3? I have no clue and neither do you. Maybe, in a gun-free society, robbery #3 would be the one that got me a blade through the kidney.
I'm good, thanks.
Please see my other posts in this thread for some real-life data about the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.
Rather than answer the same stupid question a hundred times, I'll simply ask that you read the entire thread. It's been answered.
You're also missing the point about the possibility of the victim being armed being a deterrent.
And no, the fact is that every country that has enacted a gun ban when their citizens already widely owned guns saw a sharp increase in violent crime, not just gun-related crimes, but all violent crime, across the board. And rather than answer all the "it works in Austrailia/New Zealand" people who are also going to chime in, I'll do that here, as well. No. You can't tell me a gun ban is working where there is no gun ban.
If you really don't believe there's a correlation between people possibly being able to defend themselves and criminals thinking twice before committing a violent crime, just look at Switzerland. On of the highest gun ownership rates and lowest violent crime rates in the world. I also fully agree with mandatory weapons training; it's just as important top know when and how to use your protection weapon as it is to actually have it.
I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.
That was intended to be read as: When criminals (who already have guns) know the average law-abiding citizen is, beyond a doubt, unarmed, what is left to stop them from attacking at random? Nothing; that's what.
I wanted my gun for target practice, not even for self defense, even after being robbed twice at gunpoint. My solution to the robbery problem was to move out of the ghetto. The CCW is mostly a benefit to me when my buddy wants to meet up at the range to put holes in targets and I just so happen to be closer to the range than I am to home, and I sincerely hope that never changes (e.g. I hope I never have to take aim at a living thing). But, that all boils down to "I want a gun". Am I unfit to own one?
You must be confused if you think I was advocating for that. Maybe read the whole thread?
Then, I guess I'll play... devil's devil's advocate?
Guns exist. Whether or not purchased legally at one point or another, their existence means they'll be purchased illegally at some point.
The only solution is to make guns cease to exist. Were that possible and were it going to be done, I wouldn't mind, one bit, giving up my gun.
No, it says that's WHY we have that right, not that they must at all times, and only, be used for that purpose.
Having been robbed at gunpoint twice, I fully support legal gun ownership. Neither of the guns that have been held to my head were legally purchased, and I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.
Yes, I am now armed. CC permit and I do carry. I hope to never need it, but I'll be damned if you're gonna take it away from me.
Soylent Grey is graphene