Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Jun 2009 18:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 368594
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.
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.
It's a waste of breath to talk about software patents, generally.
Then it is also a waste of time to be critical of Mono.
We have those already, so this is not a "critical" app in any sense.
It's not a critical app for you or me (I prefer gvim) but for many it is critical. A well thought out and simple IDE is something people have been clamouring for on Linux. There are a few others out there but none seem to be as slick as MonoDevelop and it is much newer than most other comprable IDEs. This says a lot about the speed of Mono development itself.
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.
Now that's a huge undertaking. You can't just drop in Qt where GTK+ is now. It's definitely not worth the effort to port to Qt, at least not for GNOME writ large.
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.
Agreed. Mono apps are still open source so if necessary they can be ported. Despite the fact that considerable time may be required to completely port all Mono apps it's not the disaster some people make it out to be.




Member since:
2005-07-07
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.
I wouldn't agree. MonoDevelop is a very good IDE and supports many languages other than Mono.
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.