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, 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 453444
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The CLR is not an implementation of the CLI. The CLR is something far larger and more important. The CLI merely specifies what a language and runtime needs to support, such as common types, to interface with each other.

I didn't know they'd submitted the CLI to the ISO, but the point is that no CLI implementation is workable without a working implementation of a CLR and that hasn't been submitted to the ISO as far as I've ever been aware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

fury Member since:

Actually no.

Look at the abstract. For those familiar with the ECMA standards, the content included in the ISO standard is almost identical to that of ECMA-335 (Common Language Infrastructure). ECMA-335 is all that is required to implement a Common Language Runtime which is compatible with Microsoft's implementation. There is no special hidden standard that Microsoft is keeping to itself, it is all there.

I have worked on projects where deep intimate knowledge of the CLI was required (as we were essentially implementing a CLR at the kernel level), and I can assure you that if there were big missing gaps we would have seen them without much effort.

This is just fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Reply Parent Score: 2