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

Sun Sep 30 21:02:43 UTC 2012

I'm with you on that one. I personally can't wait until 2.12 is ready so I
can start using the C# 5 features (particularly async and await) in my
production code.

What we all have to understand here is that the author of this post was
trying to start a flame war like 6 years ago using a bunch of statements
with little relevance even back then. It's possible this was stuck in his
outbox or maybe he is traveling on a spaceship and his message just arrived
through the vast reaches of space, time, and progressions in C#, mono, .NET
and computing in general that have occurred since it was sent.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20120930/afdeb571/attachment-0001.html>