[Mono-list] ".NET 3.0" misnomer

reinux winfx at thefraser.com
Mon Aug 14 01:08:55 EDT 2006

Miguel de Icaza-4 wrote:
>> > If you could point out something that you think is fundamentally 
>> > unimplementable, we could have a discussion about that feature. 
>> > 
>> I'm guessing certain aspects are already easier to implement than
>> WinForms
>> (due to things like the dispatcher replacing the message pump), but
>> really,
>> no one expects Mono to be able to manage it. Most of us are more worried
>> about whether Mono would actually take on the task than we are about
>> whether
>> or not it can be done.
> That is a valid concern, but that has nothing to do with the portability
> of 3.0;   It seems actually that all of 3.0 is more Unix friendly than
> Windows.Forms was.
That's what I just said, except in the other order. It's this concern that
I'm concerned about.

Miguel de Icaza-4 wrote:
> Well, am not too concerned about the label;  Today Mono is not even a
> complete 1.1 implementation, it misses pieces like EnterpriseServices
> and it is still very useful to people.
I'm not surprised that the naming doesn't concern you much. You're the Mono
project lead, of course a little naming oopsie isn't going to affect your
immediate work. But if you were a developer or user, you'd be concerned.
You'd be worried about whether or not 3.5 onward is going to depend on 3,
because if you recall COM (and virtaully all .NET libraries) versioning
rules, even if the numbers aren't incremental, they are in order, and the
higher includes the lower.

And again, yes, Mono is useful even though certain things are missing, but
not surprisingly, these components also happen to be ones that I don't use
much either, even though I spend most of my time using the original .NET
implementation on Windows. That won't be true this time around.

Miguel de Icaza-4 wrote:
>> So my question is this: will you do .NET 3.0?
> It is too early to tell.
>>From a personal standpoint, there are things I like, things I do not
> like in 3.0, and am not sure how excited am about implementing those
> ones.
>>From a Novell point of view, if we find that implementing these might be
> of strategic value for our Linux business (buy SUSE :-), we might look
> at implementing those.
>>From a community standpoint, it might very well happen that some of
> those pieces are implemented by third-parties;  And the code could be
> merged, or not with Mono.    
>>From a project point point of view, tracking a moving API is difficult
> and it would be best to invest our time on the APIs that are set in
> stone instead of the shifting ones that 3.0 are at this point.   It is
> too early to start getting alarmed at the falling sky.

I don't feel any better then.

>From a developer standpoint as well as an end-user standpoint, I don't know
whether I'm supposed to expect .NET to have much of a future outside
Windows, in part or in whole. Until the answer to whether or not WinFX will
be implemented on Mono is a "yes", I never will know.

Sure the sky isn't falling (yet), but do you think I'm the only one that
gets the impression that it might?

If things like LinQ aren't reliant on 3.0, then show that in the name for
God's sake! If you haven't noticed yet, that's what I'm petitioning for.

Miguel de Icaza-4 wrote:
> I think that 3.0 stuff should be kept on a separate package, if only
> because it would be a release nightmare otherwise (and I already would
> like to split up some of the stuff in mcs/class into other packages, but
> we haven't done merely because of logistical and resource
> requirements). 
Exactly, and that's what I'm "freaking out" about.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22.NET-3.0%22-misnomer-tf2092941.html#a5791514
Sent from the Mono - General forum at Nabble.com.

More information about the Mono-list mailing list