Slashdot Log In
Mono and dotGnu: What's the Point?
Posted by
michael
on Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:29 AM
from the fighting-words dept.
from the fighting-words dept.
joeykiller writes "The Register features an opinion by Neil Davidson, asking 'Mono and dotGnu: What's the point?' Some of the points he raises may seem irrelevant for open source supporters (like why make a C# compiler while Microsoft's is free anyway), but others are thought provoking and maybe a little bit controversial. You may not agree with his opinions, but it's an interesting read anyway."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Free for who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes without saying that both Gtk and Gtk# (Gtk wrapper for Mono) work on Windows, too. So you don't lose cross-platform angle, but this does show that Mono is *not* just a
--
Parent
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Informative)
And just because Mono uses GTK which can also run on Windows does _NOT_ mean that there is no work involved in porting it to another architecture. The fact of the matter is that porting from windows to linux to bsd to solaris will always involve some sort of functional changes.
Mono is simply
Parent
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Informative)
Mono feeds off of the various Linux GUI libararies in order to implement the windowing requirements for
Mono offers no improvements to
Parent
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You can't build GTK# using only the Framework, any more than you could build Windows.Forms using only the Framework. You need GTK for GTK#, and you need Win32 for Windows.Forms.
Windows.Forms is part of Microsoft's
The Framework is the CLR and standardized API.
Right. And Mono implements the CLR decently (minus a few features), then implements the API decently (minus a lot of features, but slowly catching up); then it adds to that API more features.
Constructing their own GTK# language
API, not language.
and database access is not an extension to "The Framework" but rather an implementation of the "The Framework".
Wow. No. Not even. Ever. Under any definition.
Both of those things (GTK# and the database API whose name I've forgotten) are APIs that Mono developers have, that the
They are NOT a implementation of the Framework. Mono is an implementation of the Framework.
Unless they are making modifications to the CLR and/or adding new instructions to the CIL, they're not extending anything,
Great! Then we agree -- because Mono makes modifications to the CLR (by providing more APIs), it's extending
[they're not extending anything,] anymore than I do when I write my own application.
But Mono isn't just a
-Billy
Parent
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Informative)
We have turned Wine into a library, very much like Gtk+ is a toolkit on top of X, or Motif is a
toolkit on top of X, we have turned Wine into a toolkit on top of X.
The reason for doing so is that Windows.Forms is not a perfect API, it is modeled after the
Win32 API, and this Win32-ism is exposed at various points, for example every Control in
Windows.Forms can override the Wndproc method and handle Win32 messages itself to implement
some of the advanced features that are not possible with the simple binding provided.
Most GUI special effects are achieved in this way, and most third-party libraries that you can
download from the network will call into the Win32 layer, skipping the Windows.Forms API.
It is certainly possible to emulate a lot of this without using Wine, but you would just end up
replicating a lot of the work that has been done in Wine.
So instead, we chose to turn Wine into a library that we dynamically load whenever a
component needs to use Windows.Forms.
We made Wine work on multiple platforms (so you can run your Windows.Forms applications on
MacOS X for instance), and we also are integrating it with the Gnome desktop,
so things look and feel the same to end users.
You can learn more about the technical details here: http://www.go-mono.com/winforms.html
Parent
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wine + Mono = Instability (Score:5, Interesting)
The grandparent is correct to complain that it is an unstable mix due to the fact that both Wine and Mono are under rapid, and asynchronous development.
About 6 months ago, when I gave up on using Mono for development, the Windows.Forms implementation required applying custom patches to a specific nightly build of Wine which was so old that Mono was the only place to get it from. So maybe if you were successful in getting your patch into the main Wine tree, and maybe after Wine matures a lot, Mono will be worth another look.
Also, I understand that the Mono team is aiming for complete compatibility, but I'd be tempted to declare that platform-specific hooks are unacceptable in a VM. After all, SWT seems to have achived fine graphics control with a much more abstract solution.
Parent
Re:Wine + Mono = Instability (Score:5, Informative)
and better solution. And that is exactly what we
have done with our own toolkit called "Gtk#".
Gtk# not only is very nice to program with, but it
is also cross platform and people are using it
in some cases instead of Windows.Forms on Windows
itself.
That being said, our effort to support the Windows.Forms
API is not driven by a need to have that API at all,
we believe it is one ugly API. Our drive to support
it comes from the fact that people are using it,
and have made certain assumptions about it.
So to us Windows.Forms is a compatibility play,
and one that we have to support to assist people
who want to try Mono as a way of moving their apps
to Linux.
The API we are recommending developers to use is
the Gtk# API.
Hope that answers the question
Parent
One quibble: (Score:5, Funny)
Right after we see the releases of Duke Nukem Forever and Doom III.
Um... not free exactly... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Um... not free exactly... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Free as in beer... yes (Score:5, Informative)
Theoretically you could write C# applications for those platforms just like you could write C, C++ etc. applications for them. I don't see how you would need any other Microsoft products to use their C# compiler, though obviously Microsoft currently produces the most comprehensive development environment for C#.
Parent
Re:Um... not free exactly... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Although their time might be better spent in designing a true alternative to Java and C# instead of a copy that allows you to write a GNU application that runs everywhere, it's hard to fault Mono for recognizing a market niche and running with it. For example, maybe they'll make C# work on Linux embedded devices where Microsoft wouldn't go?
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
He understands all these points well. But he doesn't think it's a good thing because then everyone - even on Linux, even on embedded devices - will use
Regards
Parent
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure you have a good understanding of what a patent is? They are not enforceble if you do not use the same method as the one that is patented. Essentially, MS has patented certain algorithms that happen within Windows.Forms, which can be and are being rewritten in another way.
I doubt that an API is patentable, since it isn't a method or a material object. Then again, if it were, enforcing it against Mono or DotGNU is pointless... the projects are not profiting from the sale of the technology. They don't even exist in the same marketplace as the framework, since they are completely free.
Parent
Why not support Java then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not support Java then? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
bright people doing what they like for free ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I, myself, am happy to have the chance to sample some of this work for free. Who am I to judge since I'm not paying?
Motivations (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to use Java. First of all, I've never used it to develop software. Second of all, every user interface I've ever seen done with Java stinks. Maybe I've been seeing bad examples, but the windows, buttons, and other contols of the Java apps I've seen have an old fashion look and feel to me and I don't care for it. My personal opinion, but for me, that counts for something.
So, whatever the motivation of Mono or dotGnu, I simply want to develop my cross-platform C# apps. That's MY motivation, and that's what matters to me.
Re:Motivations (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Motivations (Score:5, Informative)
Most Java apps are not client side apps. Java is (at least at the moment) still heavily server-side. So looking at GUI apps as a mark of quality of Java as a development language is highly misleading, although understandable.
However, take a look at Swing Sightings [sun.com] for some examples of truly outstanding Java GUI apps...
Parent
You and the Point seem to have passed in the night (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, I feel like I've been ASTed.
letters to the editor (Score:5, Informative)
http://theregister.co.uk/content/35/35557.html [theregister.co.uk]
not that i'm trying to defend
Running it somewhere other than Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux, maybe? Mac OS X? Free BSD? I see getting C# programs to run on other platforms as a practical purpose. Later on in the article he acknowledges that you'd be able to run these programs on Linux, but that's more like a throw away concession he makes. He plays dumb in the beginning, and makes himself look silly.
How is making C# a standard on Windows and Linux going to hurt Microsoft?
I think that the people behind the project have better goals than that - namely, getting a particular tool to work on Linux. People use Linux for a variety of things. It would be nice if C# - just another tool - worked under it. What's the big deal?
There is an obvious practical purpose to getting C# programs to run on Linux. The real question, however, is will the
Free from MS, but for how long? and can we extend? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Sun and Java die, MS will be free to add proprietary bits, and we'll still want a free version.
Also, although there are some nice things in C# (such as being able to work with arbitrary C pointers and data structures returned by C functions), we may want to tweak the design a little, or extend it to work with python or lisp or other languages. The idea of a "glue" language that can call routines written in many languages is very appealing. Sometimes you might want to have one program that can deal with low level data structs like C, handle resolution theorem proving like haskell, and maybe strings like snobol. With a good glue language, yuo could write each routine in its appropriate language, then glue them all together.
I have to agree (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see one value, which is it allows those 'stuck' (I don't really believe in that concept, but whatever) on Windows to migrate off it. But in the same line of thought there's also this huge issue which is M$ and they way it trys with all the power of the universe to prevent that. Whether it be licensing tricks or slashed pricing, or plain 'ol FUD - in the end, they'll do whatever's possible to keep people locked in.
And honestly, I have to raise an eyebrow to anything M$. I mean, C# is a specific jab at Java. Java wasn't built to wrestle control away from M$ C++ and their dev tools. So something that is made to ward off something else that, in my book, is a pretty good thing for Internet developers, is pretty sketchy. Not saying Java is the king or anything, but the underlying reason for C# is: we (M$) can't control Java, so screw you, we'll copy and extend, build the concept of a VM (CLR) into our OS, and then woo all those productive
Lastly, any Open Source/Free versions of
And also, for me, there's just something filthy about the M$ development universe. I find their tools are kludgy, bloated, and too foofy. And I don't like having to install five thousand libraries and integrated-this or integrated-that, plus an update here and an update there - I'm not a fan of everything integrated into the OS. Granted, Net Beans can have a huge footprint and I didn't say that it is a great app (don't care for IDEs either), but there's just a something about M$ tools that I just don't and never have liked - this naturally extends all the way through their whole stack. So seeing a HelloWorld VB app running on Linux kinda makes me shutter and just kinda think why? I'm sure the natural answer for some will be - because. Meh..
Tastes like... burning (Score:5, Interesting)
He missed a very important problem though. Performance. I admit that I haven't played with Mono in 6 months or so but last time I tried it the Microsoft runtime/compiler/JIT/whatever was hella faster than Mono. Several times faster.
I'm not sure if the Mono developers will be able to achieve the sophistication required in the compiler and runtime while still doing all the other stuff that needs to be done. Time will tell.
(*) I like C# better than Java. Especially the interface to native DLL's (not perfect but way easier/simple than Java). Plus C# was designed from the beginning to have things that Java only recently got (generics anyone?).
With that said, I still think C/C++ are just as portable, much faster, and don't require stupid memory sucking VM environments. If only we had C++ equivalents to the huge Java and
The true question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed! We must innovate! (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't lag behind and chase Microsoft's coattails. We should instead innovate; create our own
then point the zealots are missing... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, open source projects written in mono will have the ability to run under both linux and windows, mono and
Quote from Miguel (Score:5, Interesting)
* GNU was based on a proprietary technology. GNU is a free re-implementations of Unix. Linux is a re-implementation of the Unix kernel. Before the advent of Linux and the Berkeley Unix, Unix was a proprietary technology, built by ATT (which back in the day, was a monopoly). Still, developers took what was good from Unix, and reimplemented a free version of it. Down to the Unix programming language: C (which was also invented at ATT). Even C++ was invented at ATT. Think of Mono as following the same process: we are bringing the best technology out there to our beloved free software platform. And at the same time it serves to be a magnificent upgrade on the development platform.
Re:One reply (Score:5, Interesting)
acquisition, from five developers to a team of
fifteen developers.
We are only working on Gtk# support.
Parent
Re:One reply (Score:5, Informative)
This problem has been in existence forever - how can it be that C compilers can be written in C? (Hint: the first one wasn't)
Parent
Re:One reply (Score:5, Informative)
But we have. We support SPARC, SPARC 64 bits, HPPA (32 and 64), StrongARM and PPC in a wide range of operating systems.
Parent
Re:Mono/MCS does not work on OS X ! .. only mint d (Score:5, Informative)
something that we are actively fixing.
(We do not officially support the MacOS X for this
very reason: we are not done yet with the port,
the technical detail has to do with the patching
of generated methods to point to new methods that
are JIT compiled on demand, and the issue there
is that the PPC needs more room to do calls that
span the +32/-32 meg barrier, so you need to build
some thunks, not hard to fix, and on our todo list)
The Mono C# compiler works on OS X, we use it to
build all the class libraries and Gtk# as well.
Miguel
Parent
Re:One reply (Score:5, Insightful)
That YOU are so sycophantic re: Micros~1 and mono is the greatest irony of all time. It would be funny if it weren't so truly stupid and truly dangerous.
This is a variation of killing the messenger for delivering the message. Instead you want to kill the message (.NET and C#) because you don't like the messenger (Microsoft). Frankly, I think it's just as stupid as killing the messenger.
Miguel thinks, and frankly, I agree, that
Has WINE helped or hurt Linux? It provides people a layer of compatibility that allows them to migrate to Linux. That's REALLY important to a lot of people, companies, and governments who are deciding which platform to use. If I'm a government agency and I have a custom tool written in C# and now we're thinking about whether to switch to Linux or continue using Windows, I have an option. Without Mono and dotGnu, my decision is made. I have to stick with Windows or rewrite my software. Which one do you think will cost me more.
Parent
Re:grrr. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for
Technically,
You can also compile many language in JVM, but SUN has never used that as a selling point since it is pretty silly. All
Parent
Re:grrr. (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, ECMA accepts all standards that companies care to pay for, they are hardly neutral.
Parent
Re:grrr. (Score:5, Informative)
Look at: http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/map2.png [ximian.com] to get an idea of what we have to offer today
Parent
Re:Technical Director? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
I think what the guy doesn't see is that not everyone 1) wants to program/compile on Windows (let alone whether they have a copy) and 2) wants to run this supposedly cross-platform language only on Windows.
It's okay to have dreams of bringing down a monopoly, but the point of an open source project is to have other options. Even if it is a long and arduous task, it still has merit, and should still be done, even if for just another option.
Now, if Microsoft makes a Linux compiler for
Parent
Re:Technical Director? (Score:5, Interesting)
And that "cute" use is enough to get Microsoft developers like myself actually interested in Linux development.
1. So Win32 developers can create applications in a high level environment similiar to Java on linux. Java is great. But so is
2. So we can port
I want to use c# and
Parent
Re:Mono is evil (Score:5, Interesting)
this is such horsecrap !
you mean that any old app written in C or C++ will break ? that gcc won't compile anymore ? FUDFUDFUD ! amazing this shit gets moderated insightfull !!!
this is so much alike 8 years ago when everyoner was yelling that soon MFC would be the only way out. guess what ? I still write non-mfc c++ code. you might want to look at this [tinyapps.org] site. are you suggesting that none of these will run/compile anymore under longhorn ? dude : it's JUST AN OS on JUST A CPU. it runs machinecode. that's all
Parent
Re:you do know.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They have no control over C# standards in exactly the same way they have no control over HTML standards: Developers code to the Microsoft implementation, regardless of what the "standard" may say.
Parent