I'm with you on that one. I personally can't wait until 2.12 is ready so I can start using the C# 5 features (particularly async and await) in my production code.
What we all have to understand here is that the author of this post was trying to start a flame war like 6 years ago using a bunch of statements with little relevance even back then. It's possible this was stuck in his outbox or maybe he is traveling on a spaceship and his message just arrived through the vast reaches of space, time, and progressions in C#, mono, .NET and computing in general that have occurred since it was sent. On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > I use a .net 4.0 features in widemargin, because they improve > the language and make developing easier. > > I would not support any regression in features compared to microsoft .net > > Doing so would also make it difficult to use mono for cross platform > development. > > Cheer, > Daniel Hughes > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Dave Curylo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> linuxtd, >> >> This looks like a flame bait message that was stuck in your outbox since >> 2006. Did you just fire up Netscape Mail on your XT Turbo? >> >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:00 AM, linustd <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Microsoft add new features into C# and .net again and again. >>> >>> More and more developers begin doubting .net and C#. >>> >>> The down of Myspace proves that .net/Windows is not a good choice. >>> >> >> Do you mean the power outage that took down data centers that hosted >> myspace in 2006? I don't know many languages that are resilient to power >> failures, but you are correct, I don't think C# or .NET intends to provide >> much advantage here. Or are you talking about something else relevant that >> has occurred with myspace recently? >> >> >>> >>> I think, Mono should not continue run after Microsoft, .net 2.0 is >>> enough. >>> >> >> I don't think it runs after Microsoft. It is a community supported >> implementation of the CLR and the C# language, and follows the same >> language specification that Microsoft does, so you can expect some >> similarities. You should also note that the mono framework in general >> supports things that Microsoft's implementation does not, such as a POSIX >> implementation layer for running CLR applications on POSIX compliant >> systems such as Linux and UNIX, a messaging layer that integrates with >> RabbitMQ instead of MSMQ, a scriptable csharp shell, etc. If the mono >> community feels it should create functionality to add to the framework, >> there is an open path to contribution, and quite often, Mono includes >> components in the framework that were not built directly by the core Mono >> contributors. >> >> >>> >>> At .net 2.0 version , Microsoft finish the .net platform building. Since >>> version 2.0, Microsoft's main work on .net is to build new components >>> around >>> it. >>> >> >> Since 2006 when you wrote this email, there have been a few .NET and C# >> language releases, such as 3.0, 4.0, 5.0. These included features like >> implicitly declared types, lambda expressions, dynamic language support, >> async language support, and so on. Other languages have also added similar >> features, or have plans to in the near future, such as Java 8 coming in >> 2013 that will support the same sort of lambdas that C# introduced in 2006. >> Just because Java is also going to have lambda support probably doesn't >> mean it is chasing Microsoft either, but simply wants to provide support >> for language features that it's developer community have come to expect. I >> don't think many languages would survive for very long if they don't >> continue to grow and evolve to support the needs of their developers. >> >> >>> >>> Platform Independent is not practical for a technology that is hold a >>> private company like Microsoft. >>> >>> >> That's an odd statement. It is true that Microsoft doesn't make a >> tremendous effort to make .NET platform independent (that's what mono does, >> remember?), but they have come around in the past few years (while this >> email has been stuck in your outbox) with an appreciation for the open >> source community. They have made some large frameworks open source, many >> of which are included in Mono due to the efforts of the Mono community. >> These probably didn't exist back in 2006, but the ASP.NET MVC framework >> and the Entity Framework are two tremendous frameworks that Microsoft has >> made open source. >> >> Why would such contributions be practical? Well, this also didn't exist >> in 2006, but Microsoft has a cloud service called Azure, and they have an >> opportunity to make money off of their Azure services whether they run on >> Windows or not. In fact, there is a great amount of support for >> non-Microsoft technologies, like Java, PHP, and even Linux VM's that can >> support Mono. Microsoft really doesn't care too much if your running under >> Azure directly or inside a Windows VM or inside a Linux VM - the money they >> make from their infrastructure spends the same. >> >> >>> I recommend that, mono should only implement C# 2.0, and do a little >>> modify. And mono and mnodevelop should not support so many languages like >>> C\C++\VB. Mono and Monodevelop should only support one language c# 2.0. >>> >> >> This was a reasonable position in 2006. Now, I suggest we take it a >> little further and only implement C# 5.0, at least until the 6.0 spec comes >> out. Don't get me wrong, generics are awesome, but I wouldn't stop there >> when implicit declaration and lambdas can provide such productivity >> improvements. >> >> I probably wouldn't do "a little modify" though, because then you have >> some weird implementation of a language that only runs on one framework. I >> think the goal of Mono is probably to maintain cross platform compatibility >> wherever possible. >> >> Hey, what do you think about supporting F#? Is it a bad idea to support >> that? What about IronPython, Boo, Scala, or, well, Java (via IKVM)? Why do >> you think it's a bad idea to support all of these languages? What about >> the developers who actively use these languages on the mono runtime? I >> guess maybe we should just convert everything to C# 2.0, but to be honest, >> it's going to take a while even to convert all my C# 4 code to run under C# >> 2. >> >> >>> >>> Mono should focus its energy on high performance and platform >>> independent . >>> >>> >> I think it does. You can read about such things at >> http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono >> >> >>> Anders is not a master, he is just a senior developer. His level and >>> state >>> of mind is so low. >>> >>> >> This seems like an odd place to make a personal attack on Anders. I think >> you should go to a C# language conference and provide him some guidance as >> I've never seen him post here. Please, though, read up on C# 3, 4, and 5 >> before you do so you can really contribute some insight to the discussions >> on all the purported missteps made in the last several years. >> >> >>> If you want to build a new world, you must be a master, not a workman. >>> >> >> Indeed. Hey, it sounds like you've got some experience designing some >> pretty nice languages. I'm kind of a languages geek myself. Can I try one >> of yours? >> >> >>> >>> Let's make mono a "C# 2.0 without Microsoft" >>> >> >> I think it is. I think you might want to at least maybe read the first >> paragraph on http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono >> >> I am running C# 2.0 on RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu, Mac OS X, and my Raspberry >> Pi, to which Microsoft didn't really contribute a whole lot. I've run mono >> for everything from large scale enterprise applications to websites to >> video games. It performs great, runs everywhere. And in cases where I need >> to, it's nice that I can also run all of this on Windows, because you know >> the saying, nobody ever got fired for running Microsoft back in 2006, am I >> right? >> >> Anyway, I've got to get back to a Sunday afternoon hack fest. I hope >> your flame war goes well. Congrats on getting that old clunker of a >> machine back up and running! You might want to check your sent items (or >> whatever they were called in 2006) to see if any other zany messages went >> out. >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Mono-do-NOT-run-after-Microsoft-tp4656785.html >>> Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mono-list maillist - [email protected] >>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mono-list maillist - [email protected] >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
