Mono and dotGnu: What's the Point?

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."

One quibble:

[burgburgburg]

By the time Mono is anywhere near 90 percent of the current functionality of .NET, Microsoft will have released Whidbey, Yukon and probably Longhorn.

Right after we see the releases of Duke Nukem Forever and Doom III.

Re:Um... not free exactly...

[Vargasan]

I thought it was supposed to be a GNU, not a YAK.

Re:Motivations

[petabyte]

I've never had ANY technology have that kind of impact on my development before, unless it was the reverse (making me 3 times LESS productive)

You're talking about slashdot right? :)

Here we go again

[powderedj]

If the open source versions of .NET start to struggle, then Microsoft will probably just bail Novell out with $150 million or so like it did Apple.

Come on. I really wish I could recall the exact amount of cash Apple had at the time of this investment, but $150M was sure as hell not an amount to bail the comany out. Apple is dying, the sky is falling, blah blah. Damn them for making reply to this BS.

The point?

[illuminatedwax]

The point?
" Mono and .GNU "
It's right ^ there.

--Stephen

Re:Free for who?

[cwhicks]

Somebody mod this guy down, he doesn't know what he is talking about. ;)

Re:Free for who?

[Cally]

Last I knew, the .NET framework was only available for Win32 and FreeBSD. Has this changed recently?

If you were reading Slashdot last night, or used IRC, you'd know the answer to this :)

Re:One quibble:

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

By the time Mono is anywhere near 90 percent of the current functionality of .NET, Microsoft will have released Whidbey, Yukon and probably Longhorn.

Yeah, but now they've got the source code, they'll be able to knock out a .Net port by the end of next week!

Re:grrr.

[fitten]

All declarative languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.

Many of C# extra "features" are unnecessary "syntactic sugar",

There was a decent "article" a few days ago that linked an "interview" with the head of the C# group who "talked" about some interesting things and "addressed" a few of the "syntatic sugar" discussions. It also addresses why a number of decisions were "made" contrary to the way Java does things and why those Java "things" were considered "bad".

I'd like to see some "information" on what you think are "superfluous and harmful" in C#.

Re:One reply

[Deraj DeZine]

Miguel, muchas gracias para tu repuesta...

Yeah, this guy doesn't know Spanish. Allow me:

Miguel, muchas gracias para los cerebros deliciosos y los monos azules. Vamos a comer todos los monitos.

What REALLY bothers me about Mono

[plinius]

Is that it's related to Herpes(TM) (factually true).

Herpes is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

Re:Why not support Java then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not condemning Java in any way, I'm not zealoting for .NET in any way, so why the hell are people assuming I am?

You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:One reply

[miguel]

Why would anyone run highly inneficient code written in anything but tightly written assembly code?

Discuss amongst yourselves