Linked by David Adams on Fri 12th Jun 2009 14:55 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Mono Project 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 368665
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

I agree that Mono can't play catchup 100% (just like OpenOffice, wine, etc. with regards to full compatibility). But, what if the Mono platform got traction as a reasonable dev platform. Maybe then, it becomes the preferred .Net, even if it's a bit different (since it's both more than .Net and less than .Net as you pointed out).

Reply Parent Score: 1

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

I agree that Mono can't play catchup 100% (just like OpenOffice, wine, etc. with regards to full compatibility). But, what if the Mono platform got traction as a reasonable dev platform. Maybe then, it becomes the preferred .Net, even if it's a bit different (since it's both more than .Net and less than .Net as you pointed out).


That would be very nice but it's just not going to happen. If it did I'd be the first person to shut up about Mono.

But let's get real. Simply look at history. For example, when Borland produced better compilers, IDE and libraries (The Object Windows Library [OWL] was so far ahead of crappy MFC it wasn't funny, and in fact, far ahead of most alternatives like wxWindows in terms of ease-of-use etc). Microsoft delayed licensing of MFC support to Borland. This cut off Borland's "air" for long enough that Visual Studio took over. It certainly wasn't because Visual Studio was better (it wasn't at the time). Such things have happened numerous other times with technology that has threatened Microsoft (both to competitors and partners). The wrath of unkempt geeks is hardly a deterrent to them doing such a thing.

Do you not think this would not happen to Mono if it ever became the preferred .NET platform? Of course it would, it is within Microsoft's DNA and they can't help themselves but to do it (despite some of the open minded people starting to work there, there are still the same layers of pointy-haired bosses calling the shots). They don't have to do it heavy handedly either, just rapid changes to the platform, delays in publishing specs and FUD would be enough to make Mono fall behind that it would never be a Windows developer's first choice.

So, that is why I wonder why people persist with Mono when they can have 100% open source and patent free Java apps that will also work on Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, etc etc. The performance of .NET is not better than Java and is usually worse (which is why Microsoft's .NET terms of use prohibited benchmarking). Sure, Java may have slightly inconvenient syntax some times (getters/setters) but does that really make it worth switching to "slightly incompatible with MS.NET libraries and under a patent FUD cloud" Mono for this syntactic sugar? I know it doesn't make any strategic sense to me to choose Mono over Java - once you're down coding in the trenches other things make more difference to development time (especially on very large projects) then these marketing bullet-point items. In short, forget .NET use Java.

Remember, it is not the technology itself that matters, it is who has *control* over your strategic platforms (you, or some other company that has their own interests at heart).

Edited 2009-06-15 23:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2