[Mono-osx] MacOS bindings and MonoDevelop.

[Duane Wandless]

Yes MonObjc is the logical choice.  I did find that its memory consumption
was higher than mobjc, http://code.google.com/p/mobjc/.  Both MonObjc and
mobjc are easy to use and integrate with.  No offense, but I found
NObjective harder to use.

And ideally one of the end goals would be for MonoDevelop to utilize this
standard bridge as well as developing a tight integration with Interface
Builder.  The best Mono apps on Mac need to have IB as the GUI design tool.
It can be done today of course but making it straightforward would bring
even more Mono developers to the Mac.

To me, Laurent, Jesse and Eugeny need to consolidate their efforts.  I know
it is no fun to compromise but that would be the ideal solution.  MonObjc
could be enhanced by the efforts of Jesse and Eugeny.

So I would suggest MonObjc and hope that the others put their efforts into
improving MonObjc.

Duane

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at novell.com> wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
>    We are at an interesting point in the life of Mono on OSX.
>
>    I want to discuss two topics
>
> BINDINGS
>
>    We at Novell are still shipping the old Cocoa# that is no longer
> being actively developed or maintained and in the meantime three
> bindings have been created.
>
>    I took a look at MonObjc this weekend and the docs were great, the
> source code pretty and the community seems active.
>
>    I know there are two other bindings (one from Jesse I believe, and
> one that uses some static bindings that is supposed to be very fast).
>
>    We do not plan on spending any resources (Novell) on Cocoa# at this
> point, but we will continue to ship the library for folks that might
> have taken a dependency on it and expect it to be part of Mono.
>
>    But we would like to encourage/recommend one of the new frameworks
> for Mono, and we would love to see MonoDevelop templates so folks doing
> OSX-only apps can get up and running in no time.
>
>    Is there any reason why we can not merge the "best of" each
> framework into MonObjc which seems to have an active and vibrant
> community?
>
> MONODEVELOP
>
>    In addition to the templates for the bindings (which each binding
> could provide;   We would just have to make it so that MonoDevelop can
> locate those templates installed by other frameworks).
>
>    But additionally, if we add support for Interface Builder, we should
> probably be thinking how can we map interface builder outlets and map
> those to code-behind or partial classes to give folks automatically
> support for intellisense for any outlets/objects created.
>
>    The Silverlight and ASP.NET setups depend on this to improve
> intellisense.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Miguel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-osx mailing list
> Mono-osx at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-osx
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-osx/attachments/20090512/7220f99d/attachment-0001.html