[Mono-docs-list] Re: [Mono-list] Offline docs, PerlSharp
Daniel Morgan wrote: I can not wait for the static HTML documentation for Mono. Wait no longer. :) See: http://taubz.for.net/code The docs aren't perfect, but... *Also* I've put up a little webpage for my PerlSharp binding, including documentation for it using the same method as I used to generate the docs above. -- - Joshua Tauberer http://taubz.for.net ** Nothing Unreal Exists ** ___ Mono-docs-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-docs-list
[Mono-list] New snapshot of prj2make-sharp v 0.12
I have now completed the initial implementation of Makefile generation from MonoDevelop/#Develop cmbx and prjx files. An new source code snapshot of prj2make-sharp is available at: http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?prj2make-sharp Check out the documents section for some screen shots. I want to thank Todd Berman and Vladimir Vukicevic for help through out the process. Thank you all. Francisco Paco Martnez http://www.mfconsulting.com/blog ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] New snapshot of prj2make-sharp v 0.12
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On the subject of makefiles What is the difference between make, gmake and nmake ? On both linux and windows I'm used to using make and make for win32 Also, while MonoDevelop opens the combine without any problem, Sharpdevelop can't find the paths (because of linux/windows differences in path notation???) Timothy. On Sunday 11 April 2004 15:25, Francisco T. Martinez wrote: I have now completed the initial implementation of Makefile generation from MonoDevelop/#Develop cmbx and prjx files. An new source code snapshot of prj2make-sharp is available at: http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?prj2make-sharp Check out the documents section for some screen shots. I want to thank Todd Berman and Vladimir Vukicevic for help through out the process. Thank you all. Francisco Paco Martnez http://www.mfconsulting.com/blog ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAeWCcCaEsekficpoRAmcmAJ0ScGw6sz7omoVjl+fYdTfRdzVFBgCfWp01 tQqFq3DYsn80QyP73/CFrGA= =33Np -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] New snapshot of prj2make-sharp v 0.12
Below... On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 11:13, Timothy Parez wrote: snip/ What is the difference between make, gmake and nmake ? For make vs. gmake, it depends on what platform you're on. On Linux, these are the same program; on BSD and other Unix-like (or Real Unix) systems, they're not. gmake (GNU make) includes a number of syntax extensions, such as immediate variable assignment (foo := bar). Check the GNU make info manual (``info make''), and read the Features node. A summary of some differences between gmake and make: VPATH variable handling; pattern rules using %; conditional execution; and others. nmake is Microsoft's make equivalent, and is very different. For example, all makes permit deferred variable assignment: foo = bar But conditional execution varies wildly. GNU make has ``ifeq...endif'', while nmake uses !IF ... !END IF. GNU make also has a number of built-in functions such as $(strip), $(patsubst), $(findstring), etc. nmake has no equivalent (that I'm aware of). - Jon ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] New snapshot of prj2make-sharp v 0.12
Jonathan Pryor wrote: Below... On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 11:13, Timothy Parez wrote: snip/ Ah thnx :) In that case I'll avoid nmake and stick to make and make for win32 :) Timothy.
Re: [Mono-list] Offline docs, PerlSharp
Daniel Morgan wrote: I can not wait for the static HTML documentation for Mono. Wait no longer. :) See: http://taubz.for.net/code The docs aren't perfect, but... *Also* I've put up a little webpage for my PerlSharp binding, including documentation for it using the same method as I used to generate the docs above. -- - Joshua Tauberer http://taubz.for.net ** Nothing Unreal Exists ** ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] I give up / Mac OS X PPC support
Hi all, Developing and delivering software like Mono is not an easy task and a complex engineering project. We're committed to delivering Mono 1.0 in June and supporting the Linux x86, MacOS X platforms, have no doubt about that. As you know we also intend to provide support for Solaris and Linux PPC. We're also committed to delivering GTK# 1.0 in this release and SWF by the end of the year. We are privileged to observe the evolution of Mono on a daily basis. In my previous job, building from the source was something you didn't want to do unless you had to, builds were often broken and unreliable. A good build, one QA could work on, was a rare commodity. Most of us build Mono from CVS everyday with its share of frustration and disillusions but all in all, it often works. My main machine is a Powerbook running MacOS X but I also run Linux PPC, Linux x86 and Windows XP ; I have to because like Miguel, our Ximian engineers and all the good people contributing to Mono, I want to make sure we deliver on our promises. And because I mainly use MacOS X, I harass Miguel everyday about bugs I find. Mono on PPC has been frustrating in the last few weeks but I run 0.31 with some success. Recently, Miguel asked Martin to help out on PPC ; with his involvement in addition to Paolo's and Miguel's, I am confident we'll be successful. x-tad-smallerErik Dasque Product Manager for Mono, Ximian. Office: (+1) 617 613 2009 Cell:(+1) 617 953 9104 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/x-tad-smaller On Apr 9, 2004, at 1:07 AM, Steve Mentzer wrote: Sadly, I must agree. The mono team have made excellent progress on bringing PPC into the JIT era but. On a whim, I decided to install fedora core 1 and build mono. It built and installed without incident. Truly remarkable. I must say that I was impressed. XSP kept crashing, but that is a different story... On x86 hardware, I prefer windows xp/2003. Sorry, I love *nix, but linux doesn't do much for me on x86, especially when x86/windows offers 100% compatibility and killer dev tools. Frankly, there is no real reason to host asp.net apps under apache, when my XP box does better after locking it down. No religion here folks, just reality. OS/X and PPC is a different story. This is a situation that is DYING for an x86 crossover platform. Don't talk to me about Java if I wanted java, I wouldn't be using mono or c#. C++/wxWindows/Qt/GTK/etc... yawn. Once again, I want c#. Mono on the PPC is painful. There is no *documented*, stable or official GUI toolkit support. Hell, even the core runtime is about as stable as IIS 4. :) Beyond that, the mono releases are hit and miss. You have about a 75% chance of the build failing or getting the dreaded 'bus error'. I appreciate the new features and the roadmap, but if all mono has to offer is x86/linux stability, then mono has only succeeded in doing is providing a 'free' implementation of the .net runtime that runs on the same commodity hardware that a fully supported and commercial version runs on. Mono cannot win if it sticks to the 'linux vs. windows' card. Linux hacks hate MS and C# and .NET. Corporate windows users will be reluctant to adopt linux/mono when they can get a fully supported, commercial version from MS that will run on the same hardware. Believe it or not, most windows shops adopting .NET don't care about OS licensing costs or security. They are interested in RAD. So mono is a little like selling ice cubes to the eskimos. Now, if mono ran reliably on HPUX, sparc, linux, os/x, windows, *bsd and some other *nix variants, then you would have succeeded in beating MS at their own game. The only argument against .net now is that it isn't cross platform. If mono fills that niche, then the sky is the limit. No offense to the mono team, but you should either drop support for PPC entirely or actually concentrate on getting it as stable as x86/linux. Sorry for the long rant guys... its been a long day... :) Original Message --- my problem with gtk# personally is that mac os x is not supported. although you can find people who hacked it together, if you co it from cvs, and install it, the samples don't work. i don't have a linux box, only a mac, and i would love to play with mono on it, but it's been two months now, and i don't feel any closer. there are also problems with xsp, and sometimes mono doesn't compile either (i mean cvs version). regards, Grudgingly, I have to agree with above statement(s). Mono support for Mac OS X/ PPC is fragile at best. I even tried to put together a page on the basic steps ( http://homepage.mac.com/griffincaprio/mono/RunningMonoOnMacOSX.html ), but I have all but given up trying to maintain that page. This is because mono not reliable from day to day, release to release, on the PPC / Mac OS X platform. I am not saying that running off the CVS tree is the most stable way to work, but this goes for the releases also. 0.29 worked on the PPC, 0.30 didn't without some major
Re: [Mono-list] New snapshot of prj2make-sharp v 0.12
The most important reason why I still believe that nmake.exe is viable, has to do with its availability. Nmake is still bundled with the .NET Framework SDK 1.1, MS Platform SDK and Visual Studio .NET 2003. Both of these Microsoft SDKs may be downloaded by anyone free of charge. It has been my experience that most of the production servers running MS Windows in corporate America tend to have a very limited selection of development tools installed (Cygwin, etc.). You may find reference information for nmake.exe here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vcug98/html/_asug_running_nmake.asp Finally, to me, it is all about having as many options and choices as possible. Paco Jonathan Pryor wrote: Below... On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 11:13, Timothy Parez wrote: snip/ What is the difference between make, gmake and nmake ? For make vs. gmake, it depends on what platform you're on. On Linux, these are the same program; on BSD and other Unix-like (or Real Unix) systems, they're not. gmake (GNU make) includes a number of syntax extensions, such as immediate variable assignment (foo := bar). Check the GNU make info manual (``info make''), and read the Features node. A summary of some differences between gmake and make: VPATH variable handling; pattern rules using %; conditional execution; and others. nmake is Microsoft's make equivalent, and is very different. For example, all makes permit deferred variable assignment: foo = bar But conditional execution varies wildly. GNU make has ``ifeq...endif'', while nmake uses !IF ... !END IF. GNU make also has a number of built-in functions such as $(strip), $(patsubst), $(findstring), etc. nmake has no equivalent (that I'm aware of). - Jon ___ 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
RE: [Mono-list] Offline docs, PerlSharp
Can you create static HTML docs for GTK# and related libraries, and other Mono libraries too? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joshua Tauberer Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 11:58 AM To: Daniel Morgan Cc: Mono-List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Offline docs, PerlSharp Daniel Morgan wrote: I can not wait for the static HTML documentation for Mono. Wait no longer. :) See: http://taubz.for.net/code The docs aren't perfect, but... *Also* I've put up a little webpage for my PerlSharp binding, including documentation for it using the same method as I used to generate the docs above. -- - Joshua Tauberer http://taubz.for.net ** Nothing Unreal Exists ** ___ 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
