Technology Review Profiles Miguel de Icaza

prostoalex writes "Technology Review has a feature story on Miguel de Icaza, currently Novell VP of Product Technology, but more known as the leader of Gnome and Mono projects. Miguel is the man Don Box would like to see joining Microsoft for his "amazing amount of raw energy". If you read through the Technology review article, you will see that de Icaza was actually turned down by Microsoft at some point."

Re:You can't be both.

[JanneM]

[...] de Icaza took the interview as an opportunity to lecture managers on why Microsoft should abandon its multibillion-dollar business model and embrace open-source programming. Not surprisingly, de Icaza wasn't hired.

The blurb here makes it sound like he was begging on his knees for them to take him on. Not quite what the article describes. He's not the least "confused on what side he's on".

Re:Miguel has told you why

[Kluge66]

Python, which also bears little resemblance to C#, also appears to run very nicely on .NET and pretty well on Mono. http://ironpython.com/ [ironpython.com]. While they aren't all open source, there are also many other languages with compilers directed at the CLI: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/lang/ [gotdotnet.com].

Finally, there seems to be no reason to suppose that Java is somehow more flexible than .NET because Java can be run on Mono via the IKVM project http://www.ikvm.net/ [ikvm.net].

I'm not advocating the use of Mono (and I'm certainly not advocating the use of Windows), but arguments against it should be technically correct.

Kluge

Python

[gredman]

Ahem... [ironpython.com]

Re:Miguel has told you why

[miguel]

Some languages map very nicely to the JVM or the CLR
(the same developer that did Jython now has
a very fast implementation called IronPython that
was unveiled and demostrated at OSCON).

The problem is with languages that require pointers:
Fortran, C, C++ and some extra support is convenient
for some functional languages that the CLR
provides.

I mean, nothing really ground breaking, but the
CLR had a chance to learn from Java's limitations.

The new MS C++ compiler generates pure CIL executables
when using the /clr flag which is a very convenient
way of integrating existing C/C++ codebases with
managed codebases.

Miguel.

Re:hrm...

[k98sven]

The "best" and "most up-to-date" implementation will always be on Windows

Yes. But face it: .NET apps are being written. People are using it. It's not like it's going to just go away if you ignore it. Being "up-to-date" isn't really a big deal either. People don't want to code for a moving target. Platforms reach a certain level of maturity which most people are satisfied with, (Java 1.1 to 1.2 was a big jump, and 1.4 to 1.5 "5" is another one, but between there the differences weren't so big) and that's all you need to keep up with.

Windows.Forms isn't "standardized" by ECMA, and it's very Windows-centric. Mono needs Windows.Forms in order to run GUI-based .NET applications

Not quite correct. You can make GUI-based .NET apps using other libraries than WinForms, such as GTK# [sourceforge.net], which in fact is what the Mono crew officially recommends.

Even though Java is proprietary, Sun has bent over backwards for years to get the community involved and keep the community involved.

I'd say they've done a lousy job, from the OSS community standpoint. There is no good free implementation of Java yet. Because Sun is possesive when it comes to Java. NOT because of forking or anything like that.

If Sun was scared of forking, they'd make the Java Compatibility Kit freely available. It costs thousands of dollars, terms that no OSS developer could possibly agree to. Sure Sun wants a community, but only on their terms. Sure they're far better than MS, but they're not 'bending over backwards' either.

Re:hrm...

[miguel]

That is why Mono implements two stacks:

http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/two-stack s. png

One is the Microsoft compatible one.

The other one is where we are pouring our energies:
An ECMA core with the following on top:

• Gtk# to build GUI applications.
  
• Simias: to write collaborative applications.
  
• iFolder: to synchronize your file system and integrate into your high-end applications.
  
• Beagle: a platform to provide searching and contextual information at any moment.
  
• Novell.Ldap: Focus on open standards for directory services.
  
• Mono.Data.*: The API to access open source databases.
  
• RelaxNG: Microsoft likes XmlSchema, it is older, but RelaxNG is cleaner and simpler, and we have a stack to use it.
  
• IKVM: We integrated natively with Java.
  
• IronPython: we can run your Python code.
  
• Cairo bindings: to provider advanced rendering.
  
• Tao: OpenGL/SDL APIs for your applications.
  
• Gconf#/Dbus#: APIs to access the configuration and bus systems on modern desktops.
  
• Gecko# to integrate Mozilla into your apps.
  

There are quite a few of other open source stacks
for the ECMA CLI today that range from research
to practically useful.

Miguel.

Re:Godwin's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, look at Adolph Hitler's recent submissions. A story by him was accepted but Slashdot editors have chosen to refer to him as "a user".

Re:hrm...

[miguel]

No, today we do not have Windows.Forms implemented
(I should update that graph with the latest version
where we point that out).

Windows.Forms will be available in a few months.

Re:hrm...

[acebone]

They extended Java to the point where you could write Java that would only run with MS JVM - I don't see why they couldn't do that with their own .NET as well, so alas your point does not settle my concerns.

Microsoft and backwards compatibility

[ravenlock]

Actually that trend has been broken for some time now. See How Microsoft lost the API war [joelonsoftware.com]

"IIS 6.0 came out with a different threading model that broke some old applications. I was shocked to discover that our customers with Windows Server 2003 were having trouble running FogBugz. Then .NET 1.1 was not perfectly backwards compatible with 1.0. And now that the cat was out of the bag, the OS team got into the spirit and decided that instead of adding features to the Windows API, they were going to completely replace it. Instead of Win32, we are told, we should now start getting ready for WinFX: the next generation Windows API. All different. Based on .NET with managed code. XAML. Avalon. Yes, vastly superior to Win32, I admit it. But not an upgrade: a break with the past."

This clown posts this whenever Migue/Mono comes up

[LibrePensador]

Insightful, my ass.

This clown has been posting the same drivel on slashdot since time immemorial and I don't believe a word he says.

Re:Major Tom to Ground Control

[Chester K]

If you really want to "get it" see the Samba project. That cat and mouse game has been going on for the better part of a decade. ... Mono can be blown up at any time simply with a patch.

That's pure FUD, and shows a complete lack of understand of the issues involved.

Samba has had problems with SMB because SMB was an undocumented protocol that changed as new features were added. Not because Microsoft was making changes just to screw them.

.NET, on the other hand, is a publically documented development platform. (One that's an ECMA standard, no less!) Even if Microsoft wanted to pull a fast one and try to change something to make Mono incompatible, their hands are tied since changes that would be required to break Mono compatibility would also break every application that runs on .NET.

Seriously, get a clue.

Re:The other side of Miguel

[miguel]

You are wrong.

I have never been detained, its a shame, because
the legend is a lot more interesting than the real
story ;-)

Miguel.