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 453452
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Evil Companies
by henderson101 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Evil Companies"
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

"
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.
"

This is subjective at best. Define C++. In fact, define C. I've seen C that is basically 90% inline assembler before. I've seen C++ that is essentially C with some class based wrappers.

"and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

C++ is "good enough", esp. when you use Qt framework.
"

Is this your personal opinion or that of your employer - Nokia? I've used Qt.. it's okay. It's nice, but it's no Objective-C, even though Trolltech did a damn fine job making it one of the better C++ UI's out there.

I don't see huge advantages with using C#;

Speed. Simplicity. Modern features. I seriously could not live without reflection, for example, and reflecting in C++ was painful at best. Also, it's hard to get around the short falls in the C++ static VMT implementation (or did they fix that in the 20xx spec?) The fact that adding a virtual method to a base class will break the ABI for everything is really bad. It makes shipping applications a real PITA.

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.


Um.. okay. That's your opinion. I don't share it. Having done it both ways, I know which I prefer.

I believe managed languages mostly belong to server side.


No. But then you are entitled to your opinion.

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.


Free Nokia advertisement aside - people could do a lot worse than take up Qt. It is probably the least offensive C++ UI library. Now that it has more agreeable licensing, it is probably worth looking at.

Reply Parent Score: 2