[Mono-list] Resource System Proposal

[Incredible-Fish]

Oh let's see here....

we b*tch about Microsoft always taking standards and making them
"propriety"...

yet we are doing the same thing?

please.... I mean.... I really don't care what you think but I sorta thought
.NET could be that thing that pushes Linux into a world of "platform
independent" technology that will make it run right up there happy with
Windows in the corporate world. I think if you start even hinting at making
something "internalized" you are really killing the power of .NET. I'm not
saying .NETs way is the *best* way to implement something... I'm just saying
it's going to be *the* way... it will be the most accepted way and all
because Microsoft is putting shitloads of money into making it a "standard."

Now... if it's a standard let's not change it around to our own liking. No
matter how much you hate it you gotta live with it.

Put it this way... if one program designed and made in the Mono environment
does not compile and run in the Microsoft .NET environment: then don't do
it.

It's gonna be the standard. We can't change it. We have to live with it, if
we want all the other benefits. If we don't want all the killer benefits
.NET will bring to the Linux world (free marketting! think about it!) then
we might as well stick with Java... or heck... why don't we just still make
everything native?


Sorry if this sounds pathetic but I hope you understand what I'm trying to
sayyyyyy

(has poor typing/grammar skills especially after not sleeping for a few
weeks....)





-FISH





> -----Original Message-----
> From: mono-list-admin@ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-admin@ximian.com]On
> Behalf Of Guy Murphy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:58 AM
> To: Rhys Weatherley
> Cc: Miguel de Icaza; Sergey Chaban; mono-list@ximian.com
> Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Resource System Proposal
>
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > The original .NET API's for internationalisation will be
> > fully supported, and any programmer who wants to expend
> > the effort of doing it the long way can do so.  But I believe
> > that internally within our own libraries, we should be
> > doing something better.
>
> So, embrace and extend?
>
> So many time when we here people dodging a spec we here "the old spec will
> still be supported, what we're offering is just optional".... it reads no
> better when you say it friend.
>
> > I suggest that anyone who thinks that the .NET system
> > is OK go off and write 250+ C# classes, complete with
> > resources, using Microsoft's API's.  For added pain,
> > do it yourself.  One person.  No one else helping you.
>
> You're right, I'm not doing it and for that reason I can't mandate how it
> should be done. As a hopeful user of the final product I can however give
> you my opinions on what I will and wont use, and if I find people
> are using
> a convention under Mono that doesn't compile under .NET I'll feel let down
> especially over reducing a verbose term to a new keyword.
>
> > I've done this with pnetlib: it is fully translation-ready,
> > and 99.9999% written by me.  And it was a monumental
> > pain to pull out all those resources and then write
> > 'Environment.GetResourceString("tag")' for the 1000'th
> > time.  I'd sell my soul for the "_" keyword about now. :-)
>
> I vote we introduce "PRINT" to replace Console.Write(...) then.
>
> > And that's *after* wrapping up the .NET API's in a way
> > similar to Microsoft's method.  Try this on for size:
> >
> > (new ResourceManager
> >     (Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Name,
> >      Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()))
> >         .GetString("tag")
> >
> > That's what it would look like with no wrapping at all.
> > The .NET API's are not convenient to use.  They are
> > building blocks that need to be wrapped to be useful.
> > I'd like to see them wrapped one way, and not 100's
> > of different ways.
>
> Hmm, as I mentioned before, the library is essentially a
> Microsoft library.
> If you go at it with the intent of turning it into a Unix library then
> you're going to wind up with something different... normally that's not a
> big deal, it is however when the deal is supposed to be winding up with
> something the same as.
>
> It's a value judgement as to whether or not you like the verbose nature of
> the library... I happen to like it, as it is explicit and clear,
> not obscure
> and terse.... it is written that way for a reason. There is a
> product value
> in the design of the library, it's not simply "MS suck at this", it's that
> way on purpose. You might want to consider that purpose before you simply
> decide it sucks and move off at a tangent.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list