Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, The-Source.com investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Permalink for comment 453416
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Evil Companies
by vivainio on Tue 14th Dec 2010 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Evil Companies"
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26


No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++.


By volume of code, not true. Openoffice, browsers... are written in C++. It doesn't matter much if my clock applet is written in C.

Yes, but I think it fails the "modern" requirement. C++ is better than C, but there are so many thing it got wrong that it's not even worth discussing (although there are a lot of things that I like very much about C++).



KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME.

and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

C++ is "good enough", esp. when you use Qt framework. I don't see huge advantages with using C#; notably, Qt does memory management for you so GC is no biggie. Closures would be nice to have, but we will have them in c++0x.

I believe managed languages mostly belong to server side.

You can argue all you want, but it can hardly be argued that a good, open-source, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language would not increase development for Linux.


Again, developers picking up Qt would increase development more than yet another new language that remains fashionable for a while, without ever growing to commercial relevance.

Reply Parent Score: 4