Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Jun 2009 18:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 368591
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.
Perhaps it's just easier to "call bullshit" on the other claims of Microsoft, when they refer to technology not developed by them.
Perhaps it is in a discussion forum but not in a court of law. This is why I am re-iterating that this is a software patent issue in general not a Mono specific issue.
MonoDevelop is of course a redundant app for non-mono world.
I wouldn't agree. MonoDevelop is a very good IDE and supports many languages other than Mono.
So, I figure the porting will only get easier in the future. We might not hear of "line-by-line" port success stories of gnote, but the porting effort in itself doesn't seem insurmountable.
A big benefit to Mono over C++ is platform independence. Applications should be relatively simple to port to alternative architectures and operating systems as long as Mono itself is available for the platform. C++ is a built more complicated in that regard.
The original point I was trying to make is that just because a simple app like Tomboy was ported doesn't mean that it's going to be as easy to port more complicated programs.
This is why I am re-iterating that this is a software patent issue in general not a Mono specific issue.
It's a waste of breath to talk about software patents, generally.
I wouldn't agree. MonoDevelop is a very good IDE and supports many languages other than Mono.
We have those already, so this is not a "critical" app in any sense.
A big benefit to Mono over C++ is platform independence. Applications should be relatively simple to port to alternative architectures and operating systems as long as Mono itself is available for the platform. C++ is a built more complicated in that regard.
This is why I'd advocate people use C++ & Qt instead, if they insist on a "static" language. C++ with Qt is really not harder than Java / C#, and probably as/more portable.
The original point I was trying to make is that just because a simple app like Tomboy was ported doesn't mean that it's going to be as easy to port more complicated programs.
Probably true. But it's doable in reasonable time. What's important is who is willing to put in the resources, and where. Currently, some developers want to develop in Mono, and that's all fine and dandy. If some app becomes "problematic", it can be ported to C++ or Python (probably C++ - you'll want some significant runtime performance/footprint benefits if you are doing the porting in the first place); if nobody is willing to put in the time, then the app isn't/wasn't that important in the first place.
So, I figure the porting will only get easier in the future. We might not hear of "line-by-line" port success stories of gnote, but the porting effort in itself doesn't seem insurmountable.
Redesign will be necessary for anything that makes use of reflection.
Also, wouldn't it be easier to write a compiler backend for Mono that outputs simple, portable C code? This fixes the portability issue, but not the size issue (CIL is smaller than the equivalent machine code in many cases); but if you have a framework that you expect people to use, you may as well bite the bullet.





Member since:
2008-12-26
Perhaps it's just easier to "call bullshit" on the other claims of Microsoft, when they refer to technology not developed by them.
MonoDevelop is of course a redundant app for non-mono world.
Here's an interesting relevant link:
http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2009/04/01/656-porting-to-cpluspl...
It mentions:
So, I figure the porting will only get easier in the future. We might not hear of "line-by-line" port success stories of gnote, but the porting effort in itself doesn't seem insurmountable.
In any case, even if we were dealing with a reimplementation instead of port, it's still easier because you can copy architecture (class structure) and algorithms directly.
What I'm saying is - it's not necessary to be terribly worried about Mono, as long as we have a good backup strategy.