Username or EmailPassword
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.
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.
well, the problem is, that Microsoft has the reputation, that they change technologies very fast and very often. But maybe you all are right, and this will change with .NET.
On the other hand: We don't know, how the .NET development will continue in the future. We don't know, if there will be any changes, that make .NET more useful for windows than for linux, or if Microsoft will stop the standardization of .NET and go their own way. So novell is really brave to start and support such a development.
If Novell has any agreements with Microsoft about this, they should tell it to the public. So a lot of doubt could be taken away.
And maybe then hopefully a lot of developers will take a look at mono (not .NET only), because in my opinion it currently is one of the best ways to develop software for the linux desktop.
But first we need more stable APIs for things like dbus and for gnome (waiting for the results of the ridley project), so that it is also interesting for bigger companies to work for the linux desktop, based on mono.
And if more developers are interested in developing applications for linux with mono, we will maybe have more books about the details I wrote before
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.