Ajay Kumar Dwivedi wrote: > I don't know how much effort is involved in porting winforms to > linux, but feel that mono would be incomplete without winforms support.
I agree with Ajay. I expected the announcement that Windows.Forms was not going to be supported to ignite something of a firestorm, but it seems to have gone over without even as much as a whimper. Ximian's position appears to be that Mono exists to gain the advantages of the .NET architecture, not to enable people to run Windows .NET applications. Still, it's been implicit since the beginning that Windows.Forms would be supported. For example, I recall an announcement on the Gnome Basic list some time back that GB had been cancelled because (1) VB.NET obsoleted VB, (2) Mono would run VB.NET, and therefore (3) working on GB was pointless. Windows.Forms may be a moving target, making it is akin to writing an AWT library with Swing being just around the corner. Still, it appears that Ximian is not only discouraging people from working on WinForms at this point, but *ever* supporting WinForms. (I hope I'm wrong here) The argument that Windows.Forms couldn't be completed without using Wine, and thus shouldn't be done is also a puzzlement to me. Why is the use of Wine a bad thing? Is it an issue of licensing, code bloat, or the immaturity of Wine? Is there something implicitly wrong with Wine? While being able to run Windows .NET applications on Mono isn't a primary concern of Ximian's, I think that it has enough value that it should be encouraged, rather than discouraged. The idea that Mono would support .NET applications under Linux has been the part about Mono that's made it most interesting for me and my co-workers. -- David Cuny (Admittedly, not an active Mono developer) _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
