Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Jan 2009 10:54 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Mono Project Arstechnica reports that Mono, an open source implementation of .NET runtime, is bringing Microsoft's development technologies to some unexpected places, including the iPhone, Android, and the Wii.
Thread beginning with comment 343119
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by t3RRa on Mon 12th Jan 2009 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
Member since:

Mono is just an implementation of .NET created by <Microsoft> which is developed on <Windows>. And therefore it is quite sensible that Microsoft implemented classes to access registry to make .NET to cooperate with its native applications. So to make Mono compatible with .NET as much as possible, they better implement anything that Microsoft implemented. There is no big deal. I don't really get what is the problem with you. So do you want a crippled implementation which wouldn't work near 100% because you don't like some part of it? Then why not just fork Mono, remove unwanted stuff from it and use it in your own sake? Not everyone thinks the same way as you do. Please..

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by satan666
by adkilla on Mon 12th Jan 2009 10:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by satan666"
adkilla Member since:

Now you are claiming Mono is near 100%? Have you actually even tried to use Mono for development or are you just delusional? Mono has always been implementing an incomplete .Net framework since v1.0.

The following .Net technologies are unsupported and are unlikely to be completed in Mono:
* Windows Presentation Foundation (.NET 3.0).
* Windows Workflow Foundation (.NET 3.0).
* Code Access Security (.NET 1.0).
* System.Management (All Versions)

Read about it here:


Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by satan666
by t3RRa on Wed 14th Jan 2009 03:37 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by satan666"
t3RRa Member since:

I was saying general stuff not Mono specific. And also I meant that dropping a part of it is also sacrificing compatibility. It wasn't the point of my post either. Do you have a kind of problem getting the point? Sacrificing compatibility because you don't want a part of it? doesn't matter other people might need that part of it? Great! not.

Reply Parent Score: 1