Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th May 2011 20:41 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Permalink for comment 471959
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-07
Sure, and some of them are major. LINQ for Entities being an example. To the best of my knowledge, Mono doesn't even have a stable implementation of LINQ for SQL yet (just a preview version), but LINQ for SQL is already deprecated in Microsoft's .NET implementation in favor of LINQ for Entities. I'm pretty sure graphing was also added in 3.5 and probably doesn't work in Mono.
Also, ASP.NET 3.5 added quite a few new advanced AJAX backed controls that presumably may or may not work on Mono.
Also, when a customer signs a million dollar contract for an application with me, any technology that does not have guaranteed compatibility is a non-starter for me. That's why all companies producing their own versions of Java have to have their Java implementation pass the extremely rigorous compatibility test suite before they are allowed to call their product Java. With Mono, however, I really have no guarantees of compatibility with .NET. And that's a non-starter on a million dollar contract.
Also, if we bring desktop apps into the equation, I wouldn't exactly consider WPF to be a minor feature.
Edited 2011-05-06 01:05 UTC