[Mono-list] Mono, do NOT run after Microsoft !!

Sun Sep 30 20:24:52 UTC 2012

I use a .net 4.0 features in widemargin, because they improve
the language and make developing easier.

I would not support any regression in features compared to microsoft .net

Doing so would also make it difficult to use mono for cross platform
development.

Cheer,
Daniel Hughes

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Dave Curylo <curylod at asme.org> wrote:

> linuxtd,
>
> This looks like a flame bait message that was stuck in your outbox since
> 2006. Did you just fire up Netscape Mail on your XT Turbo?
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:00 AM, linustd <iamybj at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft add new features into C# and .net again and again.
>>
>> More and more developers begin doubting  .net and C#.
>>
>> The down of Myspace proves that .net/Windows is not a good choice.
>>
>
> Do you mean the power outage that took down data centers that hosted
> myspace in 2006? I don't know many languages that are resilient to power
> failures, but you are correct, I don't think C# or .NET intends to provide
> much advantage here.  Or are you talking about something else relevant that
> has occurred with myspace recently?
>
>
>>
>> I think, Mono should not continue run after Microsoft, .net 2.0 is enough.
>>
>
> I don't think it runs after Microsoft. It is a community supported
> implementation of the CLR and the C# language, and follows the same
> language specification that Microsoft does, so you can expect some
> similarities. You should also note that the mono framework in general
> supports things that Microsoft's implementation does not, such as a POSIX
> implementation layer for running CLR applications on POSIX compliant
> systems such as Linux and UNIX, a messaging layer that integrates with
> RabbitMQ instead of MSMQ, a scriptable csharp shell, etc. If the mono
> community feels it should create functionality to add to the framework,
> there is an open path to contribution, and quite often, Mono includes
> components in the framework that were not built directly by the core Mono
> contributors.
>
>
>>
>> At .net 2.0 version , Microsoft finish the .net platform building. Since
>> version 2.0, Microsoft's main work on .net is to build new components
>> around
>> it.
>>
>
> Since 2006 when you wrote this email, there have been a few .NET and C#
> language releases, such as 3.0, 4.0, 5.0. These included features like
> implicitly declared types, lambda expressions, dynamic language support,
> async language support, and so on. Other languages have also added similar
> features, or have plans to in the near future, such as Java 8 coming in
> 2013 that will support the same sort of lambdas that C# introduced in 2006.
> Just because Java is also going to have lambda support probably doesn't
> mean it is chasing Microsoft either, but simply wants to provide support
> for language features that it's developer community have come to expect. I
> don't think many languages would survive for very long if they don't
> continue to grow and evolve to support the needs of their developers.
>
>
>>
>> Platform Independent  is not practical for a technology that is hold a
>> private company like Microsoft.
>>
>>
> That's an odd statement. It is true that Microsoft doesn't make a
> tremendous effort to make .NET platform independent (that's what mono does,
> remember?), but they have come around in the past few years (while this
> email has been stuck in your outbox) with an appreciation for the open
> source community.  They have made some large frameworks open source, many
> of which are included in Mono due to the efforts of the Mono community.
>  These probably didn't exist back in 2006, but the ASP.NET MVC framework
> and the Entity Framework are two tremendous frameworks that Microsoft has
> made open source.
>
> Why would such contributions be practical? Well, this also didn't exist in
> 2006, but Microsoft has a cloud service called Azure, and they have an
> opportunity to make money off of their Azure services whether they run on
> Windows or not. In fact, there is a great amount of support for
> non-Microsoft technologies, like Java, PHP, and even Linux VM's that can
> support Mono. Microsoft really doesn't care too much if your running under
> Azure directly or inside a Windows VM or inside a Linux VM - the money they
> make from their infrastructure spends the same.
>
>
>> I recommend that, mono should only implement  C# 2.0, and do a little
>> modify. And mono and mnodevelop should not support so many languages like
>> C\C++\VB. Mono and Monodevelop should only support one language c# 2.0.
>>
>
> This was a reasonable position in 2006. Now, I suggest we take it a little
> further and only implement C# 5.0, at least until the 6.0 spec comes out.
> Don't get me wrong, generics are awesome, but I wouldn't stop there when
> implicit declaration and lambdas can provide such productivity improvements.
>
> I probably wouldn't do "a little modify" though, because then you have
> some weird implementation of a language that only runs on one framework. I
> think the goal of Mono is probably to maintain cross platform compatibility
> wherever possible.
>
> Hey, what do you think about supporting F#? Is it a bad idea to support
> that? What about IronPython, Boo, Scala, or, well, Java (via IKVM)?  Why do
> you think it's a bad idea to support all of these languages?  What about
> the developers who actively use these languages on the mono runtime?  I
> guess maybe we should just convert everything to C# 2.0, but to be honest,
> it's going to take a while even to convert all my C# 4 code to run under C#
> 2.
>
>
>>
>> Mono should focus its energy on high performance and platform independent
>>  .
>>
>>
> I think it does. You can read about such things at
> http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono
>
>
>> Anders is not a master, he is just a senior developer. His level and state
>> of mind is so low.
>>
>>
> This seems like an odd place to make a personal attack on Anders. I think
> you should go to a C# language conference and provide him some guidance as
> I've never seen him post here. Please, though, read up on C# 3, 4, and 5
> before you do so you can really contribute some insight to the discussions
> on all the purported missteps made in the last several years.
>
>
>> If you want to build a new world, you must be a master, not a workman.
>>
>
> Indeed. Hey, it sounds like you've got some experience designing some
> pretty nice languages. I'm kind of a languages geek myself. Can I try one
> of yours?
>
>
>>
>> Let's  make mono a "C# 2.0 without Microsoft"
>>
>
> I think it is. I think you might want to at least maybe read the first
> paragraph on http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono
>
> I am running C# 2.0 on RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu, Mac OS X, and my Raspberry
> Pi, to which Microsoft didn't really contribute a whole lot. I've run mono
> for everything from large scale enterprise applications to websites to
> video games. It performs great, runs everywhere. And in cases where I need
> to, it's nice that I can also run all of this on Windows, because you know
> the saying, nobody ever got fired for running Microsoft back in 2006, am I
> right?
>
> Anyway, I've got to get back to a Sunday afternoon hack fest.  I hope your
> flame war goes well.  Congrats on getting that old clunker of a machine
> back up and running!  You might want to check your sent items (or whatever
> they were called in 2006) to see if any other zany messages went out.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Mono-do-NOT-run-after-Microsoft-tp4656785.html
>> Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-list/attachments/20121001/fbc6c590/attachment.html>