Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st May 2012 21:59 UTC
Mono Project Wow. "One crazy idea that the team had at that dinner was to translate Android's source code to C#. Android would benefit from C# performance features like structures, P/Invoke, real generics and our more mature runtime. [...] We decided it was crazy enough to try. So we started a small skunkworks project with the goal of doing a machine translation of Android from Java to C#. We called this project XobotOS." Most of Android's layouts and controls are now in C#. The small benchmark is stunning, but as much as I admire the work, I'm wondering that this like going from bad to worse - from Oracle's Java to Microsoft's C#.
Thread beginning with comment 516612
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bad to worse?
by henderson101 on Tue 1st May 2012 23:15 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Depends on definition. On a technical level? No. I think they have enough evidence that their VM creams Dalvik. From a litigation stand point? Well, no, not from Microsoft. The EMCA standard covers the base libraries, and the greater API is obviously based on a translation of the Java based Android API, not anything from Microsoft. What I would be weary of is Oracle. As it is te API they seemingly have issue with, this might also apply to the machine translated Android API in C#. THERE is your danger. That and the fact that Xamarin are out to make money and will charge an arm and a leg for any products derived from this technology, just as they did with iOS.

Edited 2012-05-01 23:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bad to worse?
by moondevil on Wed 2nd May 2012 09:58 in reply to "Bad to worse?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

They also make use of C# language features not covered by the ECMA standard, like generics, for example.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Bad to worse?
by henderson101 on Wed 2nd May 2012 11:30 in reply to "RE: Bad to worse?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

They also make use of C# language features not covered by the ECMA standard, like generics, for example.


Factually incorrect. Generics *are* covered in the current EMCA spec. I wish people would *actually* look at the current specs instead of regurgitating half truths!

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.h...

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.h...

In fact, the CLR spec is now on the 5th edition!!!

Reply Parent Score: 2