Linked by David Adams on Fri 12th Jun 2009 14:55 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
A Mono developer responds to a request for "a calm presentation of why Mono is desirable, why it is not a threat, and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default" answering the three questions individually, then attempting to address general anti-Mono sentiment.
Thread beginning with comment 368321
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: MONO is a total waste of OSS effort
by strcpy on Sat 13th Jun 2009 07:30
in reply to "RE[3]: MONO is a total waste of OSS effort"
Member since:2009-05-20
Actually, I believe that the fact that Java is now GPL'ed hardly matters in relation to its portability.
The point is that the whole Java suite is extremely complex piece of software. It is extremely complex to even package something like JDK. (You might ask how trivial it was to reach a working state from someone involved in, say, the OpenJDK project.) And finally, it is extremely hard to port something that is extremely complex to another architecture.
Sadly, as I said above, this seems to apply to most (but not all!) interpreted languages, hence my sarcastic term of "pseudo-portability".
RE[5]: MONO is a total waste of OSS effort
by werpu on Sun 14th Jun 2009 06:22
in reply to "RE[4]: MONO is a total waste of OSS effort"
Member since:2006-01-18
Actually, I believe that the fact that Java is now GPL'ed hardly matters in relation to its portability.
The point is that the whole Java suite is extremely complex piece of software. It is extremely complex to even package something like JDK. (You might ask how trivial it was to reach a working state from someone involved in, say, the OpenJDK project.) And finally, it is extremely hard to port something that is extremely complex to another architecture.
Sadly, as I said above, this seems to apply to most (but not all!) interpreted languages, hence my sarcastic term of "pseudo-portability".
The point is that the whole Java suite is extremely complex piece of software. It is extremely complex to even package something like JDK. (You might ask how trivial it was to reach a working state from someone involved in, say, the OpenJDK project.) And finally, it is extremely hard to port something that is extremely complex to another architecture.
Sadly, as I said above, this seems to apply to most (but not all!) interpreted languages, hence my sarcastic term of "pseudo-portability".
Complex because it is big, but face it, java is mostly a small microkernel the vm and the compiler and tools, and a vast toolset which does not even have to be compiled for other systems (with exceptions to some jni bindings in the graphical subsystems)
so the amount of things having to be ported to new platforms is not that big, and probably smaller than most applications there are.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
That used to be a problem because Java was controlled by SUN and you could only run Java an whatever platforms Sun choose to support because you could only get your binary JVM's from them. So if Sun didn't compile and provide it, it did not exist for that platform.
Those days are gone... Java is now 100% GPL2 open source and available for anyone to compile and develop for any platform they want themselves.
So your argument is completely a thing of the past.