Guest post by Novell has announced MonoTouch 1.0, a commercial SDK kit that allows developers to build iPhone apps using Microsoft’s .Net Framework instead of the Apple-designated C or Objective-C languages. The SDK leverages Novell’s Mono runtime for running Windows apps on non-Windows systems, allowing developers to utilize code and libraries written for .Net and programming languages like C#.
this is very good news and is quite amazing. This opens up quite a few possibilities for iPhone App developers. We can now develop in any Mono/.NET language and compile and testa nd then have it compiles to native code. Also, it make building and sharing re-usable cod emuch easier especially in the Open Source world.
It would be great if they can port the whole thing over emulation to Linux.
I want them to do this for Android also – this should be easier. So instead of runnign in the Dalvic VM we can run natively on the Android and do not have to mess with the NDK!
I do believe they can do soemthing similar with Java and have it compile natively to the iphone platform.
Edited 2009-09-14 22:59 UTC
why would you wanna touch Mono knowing full damm well that it has Microsoft infestation Net in it ?
…the more options the better as a developer.
I’ll stick with Objective-C only because I think it is a very elegant solution and very easy to learn for any developer. But for those that love C#, this is a great tool for them too…
I wonder if MacRuby will find it’s way to the iPhone?
.net means IronRuby, although in kind of a weird way
Nope there is a limitation on that, no code generation or Dynamic typing, so Scripting language is a no go.
Ass
I was hoping for some Python love.
You can always give a try to android phones
It’s weird, they don’t do dynamic languages, but Unity 3D can be scripted with Javascript (uses the same Mono backend).
At $399 for a “Personal Edition” license and $999 for the “Enterprise Edition”, I don’t see this going much of anywhere. It’s just plain not worth that much money. Which is really a shame, because C# really is a much “friendlier” language than Objective-C, which to me has always seemed to me to be an ugly kludge trying to cram C-like and Smalltalk syntax into the same language…
Edited 2009-09-15 01:18 UTC
I was in the beta test program and was quite optomistic that the pricing would be $99 for a personal license… it is way, way too much money – especially for hobbyist programmers. The mailing list errupted with the shock of the pricing when announced late last week. There were two camps – (1) people that wanted to write one or two apps and take a punt at the App Store glory, they pretty much balked, (2) people working for larger companies smiled as they mentally charged the cost back to their employers. Shame as the compiler and technology is amazing and extremely exciting for a C#/DotNet developer.
This has pretty much made me realise that Mono is not for me though. Novell is draconian.
If a developer wants a punt at app store glory they would bite the bullet and write in Objective C.
I’d say this would be more aimed at microsoft shops that want a little front end to their WPF/SQL Server app to show off at product demos.
Well no – it doesn’t use WPF at all. It uses Interface Builder and the Objective C classes wrapped in to C#.
If a company has programmers with a desktop app written in WPF/SQL/<MS Tech of the week>, then there is some chance they could use this package to create something for iPhone, using their .NET experience.
That is the customer it seems to be aimed at.
Especially when Unity 3D is so much cheaper (uses same Mono backend).
But when it comes to DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, their development tools are simply some of best ways to get things done.
I’ve yet to touch IPhone development, but these certainly opens up huge access to libraries and system that people already know.
That is quite true.
And you can say whatever you want about Microsoft, and I also have done my part of Microsoft bashing, but their developer support is just great.
Just recently, I discovered that with a basic developer registration I barely have access to many of Apple’s documentation, while with Microsoft I can access almost everything without having to get a MSDN subscription.
What do you mean you barely have access to the developer documentation..? I have never had any issues finding documentation, either included with Xcode or via developer.apple.com. Can you be more specific..?
Except on open technology, like the internet (html/css/javascript). They seem to really hate their web developers (I pointed this out on their blog, and they refused to post my last comment – chickens).
probably because html/css/javascript are really bad for developers, but that’s another topic
Obviously I think MS wants you to use ‘their’ tools and they don’t put as much focus on the more standardized tools. They make great developer tools. But they’re still a business and they want you to use their products.
I use Dreamweaver all the time. It’s the best WYSIWYG there is. MS could compete for my money on that front (having no competition, DW has not progressed in the last few versions). But instead, they push Silverlight, and refuse to implement modern technologies in their browser that would make html/css/javascript suck less – and they do suck right now, with the lack of decent layout technology. Though to be fair, WebKit, Mozilla, and Opera do support better tech in that regard – we just can’t use it because Microsoft hates us.
MS competes in that area with Expression Web, download the trial and give it a try.
I did, it’s better than Frontpage, but still crap. The problem is it targets a crap platform (IE). When they add support for visually editing of CSS3 and HTML5, and add a proper JavaScript debugging engine, with something approaching modern performance standards, then we’ll know they are serious. Until then, the only conclusion to draw is that they hate their web developers, and don’t feel the need to provide them with what they ask for over and over again.
BTW, I don’t think Adobe is doing much better with their stagnating Dreamweaver, but they have at least made attempts in the past, and have even adopted a reasonable HTML renderer/runtime with WebKit in AIR.
Well, maybe because neather CSS3 and HTML5 are standars yet.
That didn’t stop Opera, Mozilla and WebKit devs from implementing the more mature portions of those emerging specifications – and their pledges to support whatever ends up being in the spec. This is in contrast with Microsoft’s expressed intention to not implement anything they don’t think is good enough for them (canvas, SVG, DOM events, etc.), instead leaving the onus on developers to make those technologies work on their platform.
Why the MS defense, do they pay you?
The question is, why would you want to write a none standar complaine website?, ain’t that the problem today?
“Why the MS defense, do they pay you?”
Not MS defense, just web standars defence.
There are parts of the spec that are already pretty locked (like SVG, canvas) that I’d love to use. There are extensions to CSS that are also pretty locked. There’s no reason not to use those today, except MS hasn’t implemented them yet. That and their strategic decisions affect the rest of us, and cause us to actually spend our money working around their ineptitude – it frankly, pisses me off.
I do understand your point, but we’ll see if MS actually goes through with implementing any of those new standards even when they are recommendations, and not working drafts.
I already know the answer, but some people (maybe younger?) seem to want to wait and see. It’s strategic. They don’t want to play nice – I say we don’t give them a choice.
“pretty locked” doesn’t mean completly locked, is still subject to changes, better waith till is writed in stone.
“We have the rights to redistribute Mono under commercial terms and that’s what we’re giving to users here,” said Joseph Hill, product manager for Mono at Novell.
Lovely, so all those who spend a lot of time on making mono work just got their code used in a closed source environment. Thanks, but no thanks
To be honest everyone that contributes to Mono, knows that it can happen:
http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
If you are contributing to an Open Source project, and don’t care to read their license, it is your fault if then you found out that your code is being used in ways you don’t agree.
Sure, they’ve been telling it up front all the time.
My problem is when they start closing it up without doing a free version at all.
I dont ming a GPL program being released in two versions – a free and a closed source. Sort of like mysql or virtualbox. My problem comes from the fact hat they don’t provide a free version at all.
They have the legal right to do so – but IMO they also have a moral right to release a free version.
That is exactly what they are doing. There is nothing magical about the “commercial” version of Mono included in MonoTouch except it does not come with the “no static linking” clause of the LGPL. It is the exact same code.
Mono’s .Net classes are exactly the same as well, and are still MIT. (No special licensing required.)
The part that is proprietary is the CocoaTouch libraries which were developed solely by Novell and have never been open source.
so where is the free version of monotouch ?
(and whats with all the -1?)
Edited 2009-09-15 16:24 UTC
as jpobst stated, the CocoaTouch bindings are not public (and were written 100% by Novell), but the changes to the Mono VM and base class libraries are and you can find them in public SVN.
Same with the changes made to MonoDevelop.
Didn’t trolltech do that for years with QT?
This will undoubtedly provide some way to get dynamic, interpreted languages onto the iPhone, or will violate their emulation policies somehow.
Rejected in 3…2…1…
If you read what it is, then you will know that this is not interpreting any code dynamically as this pre-compiles the Mono/.NET code into machine code and to Apple it will be identical to having used Objective-C or any other non VM based language.
This is definitely cOoL and interesting news.
Will look at that SDK for sure…
Thing is: given that ridicolous iPhone AppStore where they essentially want to screw 3rd party, is iPhone worth time and money needed to develop an application?
Edited 2009-09-15 16:02 UTC