Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Mar 2007 17:44 UTC, submitted by suka
In a recent interview with the online edition of the Austrian daily Newspaper Der Standard, Mono project-lead Miguel de Icaza pleads for a cooperation between Mono and Microsoft's .Net: "I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration, and even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration."
Thread beginning with comment 224744
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-07-16
Doesn't that pretty much discredit whatever claim that Mono might have had left regarding rapid application development?
And with that discredited, what else does Mono have left to recommend it?
So let me get this straight. If we distill your argument down, are you basically making the case that developing an application in 'C' is more rapid than in Mono?
I suggest you look into programming in both C and C#. Go on, have a nice long look. As someone who has programmed in C, C++, Eiffel, Java, C#, Python, Ruby, etc, I have some understanding of what I am telling you when I say that when it comes to rapid application development, I can run circles around C (RAD-wise) in just about any language you care to name. I have a soft spot in my heart for the language, truly I do, but when you consider language level, C is not far removed from Assembly. Which makes perfect sense, considering its goals.
Writing in C is tremendously useful when you need spectacular performance and small size. But developer cycles factor in as well, and so there are some commonly accepted development approaches:
1) Where there is no benefit to writing an app in a high level language (ie; it has to be as tight and small as possible), languages such as C# and Java have to be ruled out entirely in favor of C and or C++.
2) Where only certain areas of an app need the characteristics of C, the common approach is to code these in C/C++ and address the rest from a higher level language.
3) Where applications don't have to be either tight or particularly small, there is no need to even give a low level language a second thought.
What Tracker may tell us is that had Beagle been written in C, it would have been tighter and faster. What it absolutely does not tell us is whether a Mono/.Net language can be better at RAD. It may point to a greater relevance in some situations, but to say that it makes Mono/.Net completely 'discredited' is the same as saying it makes <insert your favorite high level language here> discredited.