On Sep 9, 12:18 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes as long as you don't attempt to do any UI work and can be > satisfied by the JRE's lowest common denominator. Mono's advantage is > that it's simpler, smaller and can be statically compiled (which > explains MonoTouch on the iPhone). > > > With the CLI, .NET, and Mono this isn't the case at all. You can't run > > C#/.NET software on C#/Mono and porting between the two is a big, big > > deal. > > Sure you can, the C# standards under ISO/ECMA does not specify a > windowing toolkit, so it's technically wrong when you make that > statement. It was not in Microsoft's interest and frankly, cross- > platform UI layer is largely a pipe-dream. Have you seen any major > successful applications apart from Java IDE's go this route?
I've used well over a hundred of C#/.NET desktop apps on Windows. Not a single one runs under Mono (although they run under Wine). I've used a handful of C#/Mono applications on Linux. Not a single one runs on Windows under .NET. If I write Hello World in C#/.NET with Visual Studio I can't run that HelloWorld.exe through C#/Mono. This is the exact opposite of the JVM world, where I've never even heard of a JVM desktop app that didn't have Windows/Linux/Mac compatability. And if I build a HelloWorld.jar in any Windows/Linux/Mac platform, it runs fine on all the others. Citing the C# ISO/ECMA specs doesn't make a big difference from a reality-perspective of using actual existing software. Are you saying that there are no major successful Java GUI apps outside of IDEs? Obviously, there are thousands of highly used, very successful cross platform GUI apps written in a JVM-language, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The cross platform GUI technology works, has it's flaws of course, but it's great. Mono is simpler? That's basically developer preference. Lots of developers claim their favorite tool is simpler, more elegant, more powerful, etc. Mono can statically compile? I assume you mean compile to CPU code vs compile to VM code and have the VM convert to CPU code at run time or load time. I don't quite follow your logic here. What is the advantage of that? Most people want to go in the other direction. Also, that's an implementation choice, both JVM and CLI could be and have been adapted for either approach. I would presume that a product like MonoTouch compiles to an intermediate representation of some kind and uses some pre existing toolset or library from GNU or Apple or whomever to generate the actual ARM v7 ISA CPU code, although I have no idea how that product is actually implemented. I can see that the product requires an Apple SDK. Do you actually know otherwise? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
