On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Vamsee Kanakala <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 19 July 2010 12:00 AM, openbala wrote:
> I'd have to disagree, really. As far as I can remember, the real reason why > Miguel and Nat started working on Mono (as stated in their presentation) was > that they were worried that there wasn't truly useful RAD-style development > environment for Linux (both for desktop and webapps) at that point of time. > Meanwhile, MS was supposedly going to take over the world with its > new-fangled .Net thingy. The idea was to implement .Net CLR in Linux, and > create a whole toolset around it (which led to MonoDevelop, I believe). Isn't that how most of the opensource projects begin? (I might be on a limbo here, but I agree that there are first class ideas in oss projects also) > In other words, the whole of Mono project came about because people feared > MS was going to take over the technology world (I suppose it seemed real > enough in early part of the century). But the patent issues would always > stalk it, and not everybody bought into the Mono vision that we have to > re-implement MS standards, with a good amount of skepticism that we're > ultimately serving MS' agenda after all. > >> With Moonlight (Silverlight in Mono) and Monotouch (.Net platform for >> iPhone and iOS 4!) the Mono suite gets really exciting. >> > > As somebody already pointed out before, why do we have to bother with > extending a single company's strangle-hold over any part of technology > stack? Be it MS or Adobe, open technologies now have enough weight and > momentum to drive their own standards (Flash vs HTML5/Canvas). With a lot of > enlightened companies like Google (ok, in their own self-interest of course) > truly embracing the open technology platforms, why bother with > backward-looking, proprietary software sanctioned by a single company? > Coming to Monotouch, is it even legal to make apps with it, given the > dreaded Section 3.3.1 of Apple Developer License agreement? Which kind of > rounds out my argument in favor of not supporting/re-implementing > proprietary platforms - companies like Apple can turn around and screw you > in the end, no matter their love of all things open. I'm not an authority on deciding which technology to use in business. Probably, if I have my own company I may not choose the .Net stack. My views were only from a developer's perspective of some of the features given by a language. Like a kid standing in front of a candy shop. Why should being a opensource developer stop one from learning the stack, after all we are developers in first place. With people like Eric Meijer and Don Syme in the team - .Net stack has got some remarkable features such as LINQ, lambda expressions, covariants & contravariants, type inference which the Java world is still dreaming out. Porting F# as a first class language on .net platform is also a boost to the functional programming community. My thoughts were only to bring these features to Linux. Apple is using 3.3.1 selectively. There are still a lot of cross-compiled code in app store that was built using mono and other similar tools. But I agree with you on this that we can't develop applications on monotouch and just pray that Apple will somehow make it available in app store. > > >> P.S: Lets talk in technology! >> >> > > Sorry I didn't talk purely technology - by asking to comment on Miguel's > actions/motivations, you also made it a subjective/political issue - but > these issues indeed go beyond the technical merits/non-merits of the > platforms or intentions or actions of a single person - however influential > they are. We believe in open source for a reason, and trusting technology > companies not to look out for their own interests in the end, over and above > whatever their professed love for developers and their interests in these > days (after so many scary stories) is being extremely naive. yeah, my bad. Just wanted to say that 'in this thread, we don't talk language, we talk technology' - but it wasn't technology and wasn't articulate enough. > > > Vamsee. > _______________________________________________ > ILUGC Mailing List: > http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc > _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
