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 516693
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I'm disappointed
by henderson101 on Wed 2nd May 2012 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm disappointed"
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Hello alleged expert, let us see how you fare....

Using just the ECMA standard compliant implementation, you are not able to make use of:

- Generics


Section 8.16.1 of the 2006 EMCA 4th edition of the standard seems to contradict you here.



- Nullable types


Again, this is covered in the 4th edition - see section 8.19.


- Dynamic types


These are covered in the current draft spec I believe.


- LINQ
- CLR libraries for parallel programming


LINQ is a class library extension and it not necessary to write software. What is important is Lambda, but even then that is just syntactic sugar.

All of the parallel requirements are in the latest draft spec.


Microsoft stopped updating the standard in 2006.


Strange how there are docs dated 2009 onwards on the Microsoft EMCA site. Specs take time to ratify, so it is not helpful to assume anything till Microsoft make a public statement saying "we no longer support the EMCA and ISO and we withdraw from the CLR/C# standards committee."

EDIT: The EMCA CLR spec is now on the 5th edition and is dated 2010, so you are even more further from the truth than previously assumed.


Just check the ECMA web site for the standard documents.


Please do. You might also want to check Microsoft's own EMCA pages:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa569283

These completely contradicts a lot of you "absolute truths" above. Sorry - you are so misinformed.



I do develop with .NET everyday, so I am pretty aware of Microsoft actions in this area.


Really? And this makes you an expert because....?

Edited 2012-05-02 11:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: I'm disappointed
by moondevil on Wed 2nd May 2012 12:34 in reply to "RE[3]: I'm disappointed"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Ok, maybe I should follow my own advice and read those documents again.

Still it is so, that what is available via ECMA is not the latest version of the language/runtime, working draft documents do not count.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I'm disappointed
by henderson101 on Wed 2nd May 2012 13:05 in reply to "RE[4]: I'm disappointed"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Working drafts are future specs. Like I inferred, unless MS retracts support, they will be part of the next spec. Also, a lot of this is already covered by the community promise. Either way, the spreading of FUD due to your own lack of knowledge/agenda is not helpful..

Reply Parent Score: 2