Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 9th Feb 2006 22:54 UTC
Mono Project Apress' open source series of books recently unveiled Mark Mamone's "Practical Mono", a book targetting new .NET developers. We take a quick look at the book below.
Thread beginning with comment 94421
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


well the problem with these books is: We don't need yet another book describing C# and .NET.

What we need is a book describing gtk#, glade#, gnome#, gconf#, dbus#, gecko# and so on.

There is no good tutorial about dbus#. And I wanna have more documentation about these Unix/Linux-specific technologies. I would also buy a book, if it would describe these technologies.

But currently Mono does not support .NET 2.0 completely and the APIs of dbus are still changing very often. So this is not the time for books about mono only, but later hopefully.

I suppose the book will primarily use .NET 1.0, because of the missing features of .NET 2.0 in mono. But .NET 2.0 is, what is interesting.

For everything else I can buy any other .NET 2.0 book.

But another question: In Java development we have a lot of standards and long release cycles. Java 1.4 has been the newest version for a long time. And we have standards j2ee, that don't change very often.

My fear about mono is, that Microsoft will change the technology very often. .NET 2.0 has been released a few month ago, Microsoft is already working on .NET 3.0. Don't know, when it will be released, but Mono will have .NET 2.0 in the end of 2006 completely implemented. Maybe a few month, or 1 year later .NET 3.0 (C# 3.0) will be released and Mono can't follow this speed.

Or is this wrong? Well as developer I don't wanna learn every 2 years everything completely new. Mono really looks nice and I like it. But I don't wanna learn it now and learn it in 4 years completely again.

I have learned Java 3 years ago and my skills are still useful and my programs in Java 1.4 are still runnable in Java 1.5. I hope this will be similar with .NET too. The step .NET 1.x to 2.0 caused a lot of broken apps.



Reply Score: 5

Mitarai Member since:

My fear about mono is, that Microsoft will change the technology very often. .NET 2.0 has been released a few month ago, Microsoft is already working on .NET 3.0.

That is something I dislike about the .NET, how many years did we have 2.0 in beta? I didn't wanted to start programing with a beta but knowing that the beta existed I didn't wanted to start with 1.1 eather, so, I saw the .NET 3.0 videos even before 2.0 were released, and now I have the same problem, why Im gonna start with 2.0 when 3.0 is coming and I'll have to move my code? I don't like this early propaganda.

That is something is moving me away from .NET, but meanwhile im starting to use MONO.

Reply Parent Score: 2

miketech Member since:


well but with Mono you will have the same problem. The development is a little bit slower than the .NET implementation of Microsoft, but sooner or later you will have to switch your program to the new version.

But maybe Microsoft will not break the compatibility between the versions 2.x and 3.x. At the times of .NET 1.x the platform wasn't really widespread. With .NET 2.0 this changed. Now Microsoft also has to take care about the compatibility, if they wanna have the people using .NET.



Reply Parent Score: 1

TBPrince Member since:

Well, this is a wider problem.

.NET 2.0 has been in BETA for about 10 months. This is NOT much for such a big technology and software. However, is always a risk to develop against a BETA rather than finished software. That's not a .NET thing: that's a common problem. So if you decide to develop against a BETA 2.0 instead of final 1.1 you know you're taking risks and you will probably need to change (hopefully!) small parts of your code when software gets finalized and released.

As a sidenote, the open-source model made it worst. Yes, having sources always available and people developing against snapshots (not even BETAs!) helps developers to find bugs and to customize software to user requests, however that also make a lot of "pollution" which is always bad.

If you look carefully, you will notice ecosystem is full of programs written against partial snapshots, customized versions of software downloaded from other websites (which hold "private" snapshots), buggy versions, BETAs, ALPHAs and so on. It's a mess!

There's a lot of people complaining that their code developed against an early early early ALPHA version of some APIs is not working in BETAs anymore. Or people complain that "they are forced to change code again after I did for switch from ALPHA -> BETA..." (!!).

Microsoft didn't act like that a few years ago and they started spreading almost-complete BETAs only. Now MS has been forced to please developers who are getting accustomed to have code released faster by introducing CTPs, pre-BETA, early-BETA, RC1, RC2, RC-almost-finished and so on. That's not bad as a whole but people should remember that developing against such versions IS a risk.

FYI, I'm developing against WWF and WCF BETAs too but didn't do that until MS allowed GO-LIVE licenses for such products.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ma_d Member since:

Hopefully Mono can keep up with developers releasing products based on new versions of .Net.
Just because Microsoft releases .Net 3 today doesn't mean anyone will have apps needing it tomorrow! But some things, like linq, may get picked up pretty quick. Also, small changes to API's have a nasty way of sneaking into your code if you're not watching for it.

Reply Parent Score: 1