[Mono-osx] MacOS bindings and MonoDevelop.
eugeny.grishul at gmail.com
Tue May 12 14:54:02 EDT 2009
NObjective use value-type inheritance and it's code can't be used with
Monobjc =) Also Monobjc internally have a tool that used to create
documentation/proxies but such tool not available to public. NObjective uses
NObjectiveAST to parse Objective-C headers and all sources and tools are
available in trunk. So programmers which want to extend Monobjc to support
new framework should write wrappers by hands but in case of NObjective - all
necessary wrappers can be generated automatically in few seconds. Also I
think that all who found that NObjective harder to use have a little or have
not experience with RAW Objective-C. I have excellent knowledge of
Objective-C and .NET internals which helps me to create most flexible and
I would suggest NObjective coz it true Open Source and most efficient
2009/5/12 Duane Wandless <duane at wandless.net>
> 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.
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> Mono-osx mailing list
>> Mono-osx at lists.ximian.com
> Mono-osx mailing list
> Mono-osx at lists.ximian.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mono-osx