Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 29th May 2004 15:39 UTC, submitted by t3rmin4t0r
.NET (dotGNU too) DotGNU Portable.net 0.6.6 has been released . Read the announcement here. It's been 2 months since the last release , threading has been rewritten twice , timers redone once , binary/SOAP serialization and lots of stuff done in Windows.Forms . This release includes Portable Studio IDE, MyXaml, Photo Tool (wx.NET), KDE DCOP Support, MDI and FileDialogs, Gtk-Sharp, Svg Rendering, XHTML Rendering .
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
re: Differences with mono?
by t3rmin4t0r on Sat 29th May 2004 16:11 UTC

What are the differentiators between this project and Mono?

First off , Mono is going in the direction of "Do all Programming in C#, even Gnome " , while Portable.net is going in "We're just here to let people run .NET" .. So Mono has Gtk#/Gnome# (whatever) and Portable.net has a nice Windows.Forms implementation.

Secondly, Portable.net's policy is "we'll provide what the user wants" of the typical volunteer project , while Mono has a Roadmap , Managers and things like that.

Portable.net has no paid developers , so it is pretty impressive that it is still in the running (after 3 years). Mono does have Ximian/Novell backing them with "real" money, while I work on DotGNU for "kicks". Unlike what most people might think, this results in better code IMHO, as I never have a schedule to adhere to ... or to hack up a fix ;) . I can take my time to fix a problem the proper way .

Mono has a huge community thanks to Miguel being Gnome Found er and all that , Portable.net unfortunately has about 5 active developers (of which the lead developer has not been that active on the main branch , recently thanks to the JIT).

Lastly Portable.net is developed mainly in Australia (where reverse engineering for compatibility is legal) , India (where there are no e-patents), New Zealand , Canada and only some bits in the US . Which cannot be said about Mono which is based right in USPTO's firing range.

GCC compilation won't solve the "I have this cool .NET .dll which I want to run on Platform X" problem which DotGNU's trying to solve. (but it would be cool anyway).

OTOH, Portable.net's C compiler does support some cool things (like pthreads already work) ... But we need more people to help us finish off printf support (that is not a JOKE).