Linked by Drumhellar on Sat 5th Apr 2014 11:08 UTC
.NET (dotGNU too)

At its Build developer conference today, Microsoft announced that it was open sourcing a wide array of its .NET libraries and related technologies and creating a group, the .NET Foundation, to oversee the development and stewardship of the open source components.

Perhaps the highlight of the announcement today was that the company will be releasing its Roslyn compiler stack as open source under the Apache 2.0 license. Roslyn includes a C# and Visual Basic.NET compiler, offering what Microsoft calls a "compiler as a service".

This is more than just a code dump - Microsoft is launching the .NET Foundation, with representatives from Microsoft, GitHub, and Xamarin, among others, to act as stewards for the various related open source projects.

Thread beginning with comment 586391
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Xamarin
by BeamishBoy on Sat 5th Apr 2014 20:15 UTC in reply to "Xamarin"
BeamishBoy
Member since:
2010-10-27

What impact does this have on those guys who developed MONO?


A potentially massive one. However, it's unclear precisely what Xamarin and Microsoft are up to at the moment. Xamarin are making incredible strides towards making .NET fully portable (you can now write apps for iOS and Android in C# or F# using Xamarin Studio) and Microsoft are embracing Xamarin tightly enough to give rise to constant rumours of a buyout.

Regardless of how the Microsoft/Xamarin relationship goes, this is really, really good news for anyone interested in .NET.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Xamarin
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 5th Apr 2014 23:30 in reply to "RE: Xamarin"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

How great would it be if you could develop in C# for iOS, Android, and Windows phone with one code tree from Visual Studio? It is possible if you buy Xamarian's products right now but if MS buys them, then it would be built into VS and available to anyone who has a license for their dev tools and it would make MS's tools the best way to do mobile development.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Xamarin
by cdude on Sun 6th Apr 2014 08:28 in reply to "RE: Xamarin"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

With .NET open sourced and Microsoft opening up for external contributions, like patches to port to other platforms(?), Mono is about to lose its unique selling point.

Why would you go with the, not that compatible, clone while the original offers the same but is better maintained, has more users and customers, is the de facto reference and is rolled out and in used in thausend of factors more projects and products, why?

Also, Mono is owned by Xamarin and non-free-beer, cost money, to proper use Android/iOS API while .NET and the Foundation driving it doesn't seem to be interested to limit its usage to make profits with licenses.

Point is if .NET then .NET. I don't see room for alternates now that Microsoft removed its biggest limitations. But then maybe there are still valid use-cases for something like Mono?

Edited 2014-04-06 08:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Xamarin
by henderson101 on Mon 7th Apr 2014 12:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Xamarin"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

With .NET open sourced and Microsoft opening up for external contributions, like patches to port to other platforms(?), Mono is about to lose its unique selling point.


I hope so. Mono is the least open source project I can think of. They have licensed the code in such a way that it is impossible to do anything with the source to target a platform that requires static linking, and even more recently have begun attempting to limit the embedding of their runtime in Apps. This is solely to sell iOS, Android and Mac App store licenses (all priced as individual purchases.) Especially for the Mac, this seems entirely underhanded, as there was a long history of embedding the Runtime in apps to avoid requiring a Mono Runtime download.

Why would you go with the, not that compatible, clone while the original offers the same but is better maintained, has more users and customers, is the de facto reference and is rolled out and in used in thausend of factors more projects and products, why?


That's not really true. The MonoTouch apps on the iOS platform (of which there are a lot) all exist because of Mono, not Microsoft. Mono, on an API level, is more than just "not that compatible", but it doesn't support WinForms (fully) and WPF (at all?), so I guess if that is your yardstick, it's half baked.

Also, Mono is owned by Xamarin and non-free-beer, cost money, to proper use Android/iOS API while .NET and the Foundation driving it doesn't seem to be interested to limit its usage to make profits with licenses.


It costs money to use any flavour of the Xamarin UI API namespaces, bar the very basic and limited free version. MonoMac is still free, but I believe they also force the same embedding rules, which are draconian.

However, Mono isn't owned by Xamarin as far as I remember. It's owned by Novell and Xamarin have a "perpetual license" allowing them to continue to develop and sell Mono. If Novell chose to revoke that license for some reason, Xamarin would be as screwed as the customers they support.

Point is if .NET then .NET. I don't see room for alternates now that Microsoft removed its biggest limitations. But then maybe there are still valid use-cases for something like Mono?


Remobjects just released a C# compiler that targets various native platforms directly - without a .Net runtime. Have a gander at http://www.remobjects.com/elements/hydrogene/

Edited 2014-04-07 12:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3