This is utterly ridiculous. All these things are obvious. I mean, suggesting I join a Delphi forum? (previous post) As if somehow I hadn't participated in so many for so many years -- or a guy who has possibly the most marked up copy of CLR via C# extant doesn't even get the basic concept of .Net yet. I think there's a better thing to do. .

You people evidently have your goals quite set, and that's quite fine with me. Obviously I understand that Mono is not a browser technology. My concern is *running* *anything* that does anything more than *render* something in my browser (or anywhere else) -- and therefore I consider all the overlappings of .Net dedicated to running *anything* I don't *know* about conclusively as a potential risk.

That's all. But that's a big thing to me. Still, I my purpose in mentioning this was to point out a division -- MS is betting on diverse executables everywhere; the succeeding, competing browsers are excelling because they are providing ways to *cut off* *all* those kinds of things... right down to _javascript_ (mentioned too just as an example of *the extent* of the *desirable* protection from these executables). That spells an opportunity to me -- an opportunity to point sights at a place down the road where instead of multivarious styles of web development tolerating *any* number of executables, we have found we better tolerate no unknown executables, and perform all rendering with a known application and/or its plugins. To this, this forum replies *color is unnecessary,* as a defense of those executables?

That's very interesting, not because it is enlightening (of course), but because it comes from this forum.

I also understand of course that we don't have to use .Net for these things -- my mail sufficiently emphasized that as well. My point was... well, actually my full point might seem offensive. I didn't intend that. Now we're defending Mono by thinking we're teaching ABCs; and obviously this is going nowhere.

Good luck to you all. It's been an experience.



Andreas Färber wrote:
Mike,

In short, you are mixing up concepts.

First, the CLI is not ActiveX. To my knowledge Mono does not have dependencies on any COM replacement technologies.

Second, the big difference between C#/Java and Delphi/Pascal/... is not the C-like-or-not syntax but the managed environment it's executed in, replacing null pointer references previously leading to immediate segmentation faults with exceptions the program can easily handle. Mono and .NET handle many languages, not just C#.

Third, .NET is not just a replacement for Java. It fixes many limitations Java still has and C#/VB.NET introduced some nice aglnuage features which Java got only afterwards (1.5). Java is still lacking a convenient bridge algorithm like p/invoke (JNI is not an equivalent, it compares better to embedding Mono).

Fourth, in your argument that you don't want _javascript_ and ActiveX in your browser you are completely missing the point that Mono is not a browser technology. It can be used for exactly what you expressed a wish for, transmitting data from one location to another without rendering.

Hope this clarifies some things.

Andreas


_______________________________________________
Mono-list maillist  -  [email protected]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list

Reply via email to