I am actually still waiting for the "fight" over mono to finish... as a .NET AND Java developer I would really like to see one of these be the default RAD-environment for some desktop-OS;

I am actually still waiting for the "fight" over mono to finish... as a .NET AND Java developer I would really like to see one of these be the default RAD-environment for some desktop-OS; and at the moment we only got Windows For now I just stick to Windows as my default OS until the fight is settled.

Since .NET imho is superior to Java I am cheering for Mono in GNOME. Lets just hope they also manage to make their own standardized framework to _replace_ the forbidden fruit like ADO.NET (one API per database engine kinda sucks).

The problem I have with Mono is unfortunately there will be those who will demand the non-ECMA components. Even if there is a great stack provided there will be those who will base their applications on the non-ECMA components and thus make tempting these developers to the 'free side' difficult.

I agree. That is why Mono need to make something better to replace these parts.

Any patents that Microsoft (or anyone else) *might* have on ADO.Net, etc, *might* also apply to any frameworks designed by Mono (or anyone else). There's just no way to tell since no one even knows if these patents exist.

"Any patents that Microsoft (or anyone else) *might* have on ADO.Net, etc, *might* also apply to any frameworks designed by Mono (or anyone else). There's just no way to tell since no one even knows if these patents exist.

One thing I noticed when fiddling around with Mono on Mac is just how easy it is - something that really pulls me towards it after having battled with the idea of trying to understand Java (which seemed to me as being rather overly complex).

When you say "fiddling around with Mono" I assume you mean C#. If that is the case how can you say that C# is easier to understand than Java when the bases of both languages are virtually identical? The differences between them don't start manifesting until you get into the advanced topics.

Also to call Java overly complex in the same paragraph is ridiculous. Java actually has a pretty small feature set by design. C# on the other hand is grab bag containing every feature the designers could think of.

Pick up a Java book for beginners then claim that it is an easy language to learn; I spent a good 6 months trying to get my head around object orientated principles - I eventually gave up, it was an exercise in futility.

I never claimed it was an easy language, just that it's feature set was much smaller compared to C# and that both have a nearly identical base.

What puzzled me was your claim that fiddling around with Mono is easy while calling Java overly complex. It just doesn't make sense. C# is clearly the more complex language, and to a novice both would seem equally daunting to start with since until you get into advanced topics the languages are nearly identical.

When you say "fiddling around with Mono" I assume you mean C#. If that is the case how can you say that C# is easier to understand than Java when the bases of both languages are virtually identical? The differences between them don't start manifesting until you get into the advanced topics.

Also to call Java overly complex in the same paragraph is ridiculous. Java actually has a pretty small feature set by design. C# on the other hand is grab bag containing every feature the designers could think of.

Try using Swing and claim compare that to C# - then claim that C# is complex.

i disagree. Java is not Swing. as language, C# is much more complex.

Valid comparison is Swing and Gtk#.

Take ADO.NET as an example...if Mono where to make something equally good or better than ADO.NET (instead of just a database specific API), that even worked on .NET, what would stop both Linux, OSX and even Windows developers to choose this over ADO.NET

When you say "fiddling around with Mono" I assume you mean C#. If that is the case how can you say that C# is easier to understand than Java when the bases of both languages are virtually identical? The differences between them don't start manifesting until you get into the advanced topics.

Also to call Java overly complex in the same paragraph is ridiculous. Java actually has a pretty small feature set by design. C# on the other hand is grab bag containing every feature the designers could think of.

Try using Swing and claim compare that to C# - then claim that C# is complex.

It has something better, deletages. the MVC pattern is easily implemented with it, and even more.

Java has no comparition with C#, even if the troll in you insist with the contrary.

I see your lack of knowledge of WinForms and WPF, delegates allow more than just the MVC, like The MVP, MVVP, it is more extensible.

But please, don't say one is better than the other when you clearly don't have the experience, your hate to MS just makes you jump to inaccurate conclutions.

As to your other complaints... welcome to functional programming.

Seriously... you want to add a static method to an instance variable? do you plan to allow the dynamic creation of a new class?

non-deterministic resource deallocation? Welcome to garbage collection.

As to your other complaints... welcome to functional programming.

Seriously... you want to add a static method to an instance variable? do you plan to allow the dynamic creation of a new class?

Garbage collection has everything to do with it. The garbage collection system takes over responsibility for resource deallocation.

you use a language with GC, you accept that. Managed C++ has GC features but that is more a function of being compiled to IL code rather than it being a central feature of the language.

C# is an evolving mixed paradigm language. it is both imperative and adding Functional features to support interesting things in the framework.

As to what you want to do with Static methods, you want it to work in a way you like rather than a way it is meant to work. You want to add static features? you will have to subclass it. It certainly should never be able to be done at run time.

C# is an evolving mixed paradigm language. it is both imperative and adding Functional features to support interesting things in the framework.

As to what you want to do with Static methods, you want it to work in a way you like rather than a way it is meant to work. You want to add static features? you will have to subclass it. It certainly should never be able to be done at run time.

Pick up a Java book for beginners then claim that it is an easy language to learn; I spent a good 6 months trying to get my head around object orientated principles - I eventually gave up, it was an exercise in futility.

I'm sticking with C because at least that makes some sense in my mind versus the mess that object orientation looks like.

Probably not Java but JDK and JVM are overly complex and should be revised (or Java completely discontinued, nobody loves it anyway).

C# vs Java is not just one language against the other it is also the std libraries of .NET vs JDK and CLR against JVM and the concepts that follow from this.

The .NET libraries are many, many, many times easier to use compared to the JDK libraries. In .NET you have one or two ways of doing a specific thing and you are almost never in doubt what the designers were thinking when they created the API for the given namespace.

i disagree. Java is not Swing. as language, C# is much more complex.

I was fiddling around with it last time, I was able to make a small widget that takes puts, regurgitates them, parsing a file etc. It was as easy as eating a doughnut.

You are talking apples and oranges here. Valid comparison is Swing and Gtk#. Gtk# probably didn't go down the overengineering route as badly as Swing.

If you are not exactly the fan of OOP-for-everything, you may like Qt's approach to gui's as well. Qt doesn't use subclassing for event handling either.

And, if you are waiting for "standard to emerge" between Java and C#, your wait is over. Java is pretty dead for linux desktop app development (I think Eclipse is the only one still standing).

Mono really needs to hash it out against Python and C++, which is a different proposition altogether...

They're not the same on a much more basic level than you imply. The Java syntax is very wordy, C# is terse. Java pushes the developer down a very specific route, C# is a lot less interested in protecting the programmer and more interested in getting to the point that the job is done. C# is a lot simpler to come to from C++ that the transition from C++ to Java for example.

C# is absolutely the simplest thing in the world if you are a C++ programmer who has also done a lot of Delphi and VCL work. Java wants me to do a lot of work to get the same results. I don't have time for that.

take a look at 'Learning Java' from the O'Reilly book series and tell me that a mere mortal like myself could ever get my head around some of the ideas introduced at the beginning; hell, there are programmers of 20 years who have difficulty understanding them, what hope is there fore a mere mortal like me to ever understand it?

I've always found that OOP has turned what might be an interesting idea into something overly complex and convoluted - where one spends half ones time wrapping ones head around concepts rather than hitting the ground running.

Well there's your problem. You probably picked the worst possible Java book out there to learn from.

I don't own it, but I skimmed through the Google Preview of it. The author for some inexplicable reason decided to augment the canonical "Hello World" app with everything and the kitchen sink, including a GUI, inheritance, interfaces, action listeners and threading before he even introduces those concepts. He does all this in chapter 2 while explanations for things such as comments, data types, loops and if-statements is not explained until chapter 3. A huge mistake on the part of the author for exposing the reader to too many concepts too soon and without explanation.

His code is also horrid. He implements the GUI by subclassing JComponent and overriding the paintComponent() method just to display a String. No one would ever do this in real code, ever.

How come I get these ads with scantily clad women all the time on OSNews? That's a bit sexist, innit?

Is your sarcasm detector off today?