Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, The-Source.com investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Thread beginning with comment 453362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Evil Companies
by Zifre on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Evil Companies"
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

Have you heard of this C++ thing? Almost all the software you run is written in it

No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++. KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME.

and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

Yes, but I think it fails the "modern" requirement. C++ is better than C, but there are so many thing it got wrong that it's not even worth discussing (although there are a lot of things that I like very much about C++). There's also the fact that a lot of people are going to want a pointer-less language with fast, precise garbage collection. You can argue all you want, but it can hardly be argued that a good, open-source, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language would not increase development for Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Evil Companies
by lemur2 on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Evil Companies"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Have you heard of this C++ thing? Almost all the software you run is written in it
No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++. KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME. "

Of the top 10 distributions on Distrowatch:
1 Ubuntu GNOME
2 Fedora GNOME
3 Mint GNOME
4 openSUSE KDE
5 Debian GNOME
6 Sabayon KDE
7 PCLinuxOS KDE
8 Arch agnostic
9 Mandriva KDE
10 Puppy agnostic

... it is 4 each for GNOME and KDE by default. Arch does not have a default, and Puppy's default is neither GNOME nor KDE. Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian and even Mint have KDE variants, and Sabayon, openSuSe and PCLinuxOS have GNOME variants (not sure about Mandriva).

"and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.
Yes, but I think it fails the "modern" requirement. C++ is better than C, but there are so many thing it got wrong that it's not even worth discussing (although there are a lot of things that I like very much about C++). There's also the fact that a lot of people are going to want a pointer-less language with fast, precise garbage collection. You can argue all you want, but it can hardly be argued that a good, open-source, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language would not increase development for Linux. "

garbage collection, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language - D ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%28programming_language%29

It still has pointers, but there is a "safe" subset.

AFAIK it can use the IDEs, debuggers, libraries and bindings for C and most of C++.

Edited 2010-12-13 22:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Evil Companies
by Delgarde on Tue 14th Dec 2010 00:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Evil Companies"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

... it is 4 each for GNOME and KDE by default.


Well yes, if you don't actually look at the numbers. but if you do, you'll notice that the KDE distros tend to be down the bottom of that top-10, and the Gnome distros towards the top. Proportionately, the numbers are about 2-1...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Evil Companies
by vivainio on Tue 14th Dec 2010 05:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Evil Companies"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++.


By volume of code, not true. Openoffice, browsers... are written in C++. It doesn't matter much if my clock applet is written in C.

Yes, but I think it fails the "modern" requirement. C++ is better than C, but there are so many thing it got wrong that it's not even worth discussing (although there are a lot of things that I like very much about C++).



KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME.

and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

C++ is "good enough", esp. when you use Qt framework. I don't see huge advantages with using C#; notably, Qt does memory management for you so GC is no biggie. Closures would be nice to have, but we will have them in c++0x.

I believe managed languages mostly belong to server side.

You can argue all you want, but it can hardly be argued that a good, open-source, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language would not increase development for Linux.


Again, developers picking up Qt would increase development more than yet another new language that remains fashionable for a while, without ever growing to commercial relevance.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Evil Companies
by henderson101 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Evil Companies"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"
No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++.


By volume of code, not true. Openoffice, browsers... are written in C++. It doesn't matter much if my clock applet is written in C.
"

This is subjective at best. Define C++. In fact, define C. I've seen C that is basically 90% inline assembler before. I've seen C++ that is essentially C with some class based wrappers.

"and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

C++ is "good enough", esp. when you use Qt framework.
"

Is this your personal opinion or that of your employer - Nokia? I've used Qt.. it's okay. It's nice, but it's no Objective-C, even though Trolltech did a damn fine job making it one of the better C++ UI's out there.

I don't see huge advantages with using C#;

Speed. Simplicity. Modern features. I seriously could not live without reflection, for example, and reflecting in C++ was painful at best. Also, it's hard to get around the short falls in the C++ static VMT implementation (or did they fix that in the 20xx spec?) The fact that adding a virtual method to a base class will break the ABI for everything is really bad. It makes shipping applications a real PITA.

notably, Qt does memory management for you so GC is no biggie. Closures would be nice to have, but we will have them in c++0x.


Um.. okay. That's your opinion. I don't share it. Having done it both ways, I know which I prefer.

I believe managed languages mostly belong to server side.


No. But then you are entitled to your opinion.

Again, developers picking up Qt would increase development more than yet another new language that remains fashionable for a while, without ever growing to commercial relevance.


Free Nokia advertisement aside - people could do a lot worse than take up Qt. It is probably the least offensive C++ UI library. Now that it has more agreeable licensing, it is probably worth looking at.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Evil Companies
by fury on Tue 14th Dec 2010 18:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Evil Companies"
fury Member since:
2005-09-23

KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME.


I think that was argued ad nauseum in the previous comments, with the conclusion being half of the distributions include GNOME and half include KDE.


C++ is "good enough", esp. when you use Qt framework. I don't see huge advantages with using C#; notably, Qt does memory management for you so GC is no biggie. Closures would be nice to have, but we will have them in c++0x.


Whoa, Qt does not do memory management "for you". You still have to delete just like any C++ framework.


Again, developers picking up Qt would increase development more than yet another new language that remains fashionable for a while, without ever growing to commercial relevance.


I have no problem with Qt, but C++ with or without it is no substitute for a true, managed, statically-typed language.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Evil Companies
by Tuishimi on Tue 14th Dec 2010 12:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Evil Companies"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Screw C++, D and all these OOP languages... give me a good implementation of FORTRAN and I'll mop the floor with them...

(LOL)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Evil Companies
by moondevil on Wed 15th Dec 2010 07:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Evil Companies"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, you can write FORTRAN in any language, or so they say. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2