Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4570 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] Clearing up the FUD on CLI/Mono
- From: "Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:30:44 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <200511121330.22024.hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Saturday 12 November 2005 12:56 pm, Kai Ponte wrote:
> Yes, the C# and CLI were submitted to the ECMA back in '01 or '02, fairly
> soon after they announced .net. They hoped that someone like Miguel would
> come along and write a competing product to VS.net so that they could say
> it was an "open" standard.
>
> I'm actually using this information in my arguments at work as to why we
> should move from VB to C# (as opposed to moving to VB.NET). I have been
> patiently explaining that we could leverage the C# to run on our new
> mainframe (IBM z890) as back end or middleware while running C# clients on
> the desktops (mostly running Windows).
My brief exposure to Mono indicated to me that it's not yet all there. That
was a few months back, but it's hard for me to believe they've made the kind
of progress it would take to get it polished. Quite honestly, I'm not sure
C# is the best thing going for the CLI. As much as I dislike the idea of
corrupting C++ in spirit and form, I have the impression that C++/CLI may
prove the better language.
It's ironic that Microsoft is not touting this technology when a few years
back they went out of their way to destroy the browser market for a company
that had the lead in platform abstraction.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/reference/html/index.html
Qt also provides some of the same functionality the CLI provides. One thing
Qt has going for it is that it is already reasonably functional on Windows.
That it is functional on Linux/Unix is axiomatic. There is even a port of
the KDE to Windows. That's right folks! You CAN run the KDE on a Windows
box. http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/ Mind you, this is not the TrollTech
official Windows Qt distribution.
I find Qt quite nice to work with. It took me a bit of getting used to, but
once I got the hang of it, I started to perceive the underlying unity of the
toolkit. Not to say I'm an expert by any means. It's a lot simpler than
Java. That means that sometimes I have to build things that Java would
provide for me. OTOH, some of what Java provides is fairly difficult to
figure out. For instance, their tables and trees.
Steven
> Yes, the C# and CLI were submitted to the ECMA back in '01 or '02, fairly
> soon after they announced .net. They hoped that someone like Miguel would
> come along and write a competing product to VS.net so that they could say
> it was an "open" standard.
>
> I'm actually using this information in my arguments at work as to why we
> should move from VB to C# (as opposed to moving to VB.NET). I have been
> patiently explaining that we could leverage the C# to run on our new
> mainframe (IBM z890) as back end or middleware while running C# clients on
> the desktops (mostly running Windows).
My brief exposure to Mono indicated to me that it's not yet all there. That
was a few months back, but it's hard for me to believe they've made the kind
of progress it would take to get it polished. Quite honestly, I'm not sure
C# is the best thing going for the CLI. As much as I dislike the idea of
corrupting C++ in spirit and form, I have the impression that C++/CLI may
prove the better language.
It's ironic that Microsoft is not touting this technology when a few years
back they went out of their way to destroy the browser market for a company
that had the lead in platform abstraction.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/reference/html/index.html
Qt also provides some of the same functionality the CLI provides. One thing
Qt has going for it is that it is already reasonably functional on Windows.
That it is functional on Linux/Unix is axiomatic. There is even a port of
the KDE to Windows. That's right folks! You CAN run the KDE on a Windows
box. http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/ Mind you, this is not the TrollTech
official Windows Qt distribution.
I find Qt quite nice to work with. It took me a bit of getting used to, but
once I got the hang of it, I started to perceive the underlying unity of the
toolkit. Not to say I'm an expert by any means. It's a lot simpler than
Java. That means that sometimes I have to build things that Java would
provide for me. OTOH, some of what Java provides is fairly difficult to
figure out. For instance, their tables and trees.
Steven
| < Previous | Next > |