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 453638
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Evil Companies
by moondevil on Wed 15th Dec 2010 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Evil Companies"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08


I'm surprised to see someone likes ObjC, I've understood it doesn't really have much virtues by itself, esp. when compared with C++.


I also am not that a big fan of Objective-C, but try to use some dynamic language features with C++. It is really a pain to do it properly, if at all.


"Speed.


That's debatable, compared to C++. Did MS rewrite IE in C# already? (they might have, didn't check).
"

Why should they?

You gain nothing by rewriting code that works.


"Simplicity. Modern features. I seriously could not live without reflection, for example, and reflecting in C++ was painful at best.


Qt provides reflection (meta object protocol).
"

This makes the C++ code dependent on Qt, while on C# and other modern languages it is part of the language itself.


"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.
"

This is actually an issue with all OO languages, also know as Fragile Base Class problem.

Reply Parent Score: 2