Mono Outpaces Java In Linux Desktop Development 598
dp619 writes "Mono, a framework based on Microsoft technology, has become more popular for Linux desktop applications than Java, but recent changes could strengthen Java's hand, SD Times is reporting. The story also touches on the failure of Linux distros to keep pace with Eclipse."
What is strengthening Java according to TFA? (Score:5, Interesting)
but recent changes could strengthen Java's hand, SD Times is reporting
OK, I've glanced over the article twice now, and can't see anywhere where they bring up what could be strengthening Java's position in the future?
I'm assuming it's updates to Eclipse, but they never state it explicitly, just that some Linux distros have weaker IDE support compared to MonoDevelop? *shrug*
Re:What is strengthening Java according to TFA? (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't helpful that TFA is wrong on at least one point. It said that Eclipse 3.1 lacks code completion, refactoring, and debugging features. Unless the build in Debian is horrifically broken, it has all of those, including thread-level debugging, which it's had since before Eclipse 3.x. My assumption has always been this is because the progenitor of Eclipse -- IBM -- was more interested debugging server-based Java applications than standalone ones).
Re:What is strengthening Java according to TFA? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it says that it doesn't understand anything about developing and we might as well regard the entire article as trash. The one difference between Eclipse is the AST which enables model-oriented programming and refactoring. This has been in there since 2.0 at least (which is when I started to use Eclipse). Of course it already had debugging abilities build in (duh). Java (with its relatively small set of keywords and complexity) and Eclipse make for a very fine development environment, imho paling MS VS. MS still does not seem to understand that adding features is not always progress.
Re:What is strengthening Java according to TFA? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think there ever were any (Score:3, Informative)
This is like saying touch-enabled applications have made great gains in iPhone application share.
Or that there are more MFC apps than Java equivalents for Windows productivity.
Heh? Someone bought tickets to the spin train.
Microsoft shill (Score:5, Informative)
RedMonk analyst Stephen O'Grady, the guy being quoted in the article, is a Microsoft shill. And the whole article is filled with FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean other than the fact that he didn't denounce Microsoft, Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates as satan spawn on every line of the article?
Re:Microsoft shill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft shill (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone needed any proof that Slashdot's moderation system is a failure, here it is. One of the few "+5 Informative" posts, and it's a baseless attack using the words "shill" and "FUD".
Dunno if the shill accusation is true or not, but by their own admission (bottom of the page), [redmonk.com] Microsoft is a client of Redmonk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS Is Making Fools Out Of The Open Source World (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that posts like yours get modded up here ashames me.
So the facts that Qt and Java's licensing were problematic due to copyright concerns (y'know, those things pretty much the entire world recognizes thanks to the Berne Convention) are just a triviality best ignored, while Mono's alleged "patent threat" is a serious problem despite being at *best* limited solely to the US and Japan?
And somehow the fact that the NIH poster-child Apple isn't using Mono is supposed to support your point, despite the fact that they've got the WORST support for Java in the entire industry, prefering instead to push their own little C fork?
Its obvious you have an axe to grind, but thats no excuse to ignore factual information and logical arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you cite an independent legal opinion that states the "community promise" is binding?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you cite an independent legal opinion that states "mono faces patent problems beyond the average open source project".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the horse's mouth itself:
Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no patent mess.
You were saying that before the "Community Promise". Funny, right?
And yes, the "community promise" doesn't make your statement true. The "Promise" only covers ECMA 334 and 335 (C# language and CLI), as you're well aware.
Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards, and they will be correct.
- Miguel [tirania.org]
Indeed, Mono is officially being split in half. But you already knew that.
One sentence that summarized it all for me (Score:3, Insightful)
...Packaging has also been a detriment to Java on Linux, said O'Grady...
To this, [Linux] zealots will defend the status quo saying choice is working for Linux as if there are no draw backs.
This same problem is being reflected on the choice of desktop environments. No wonder after a decade of "Linux on the desktop", we in the Linux world still command a very small percentage of active users of desktop Linux. Some say we are irrelevant. It's sad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To this, [Linux] zealots will defend the status quo saying choice is working for Linux as if there are no draw backs.
The problem with Java packaging on Linux has been Sun and their insane requirements, not Linux.
we in the Linux world still command a very small percentage of active users of desktop Linux
And you know this... how? As far as I can tell, there are probably as many Linux desktop users as there are OS X users. Is OS X irrelevant, too?
Java still rules server side (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I agree we shouldn't underestimate MS copycatting...
This is beyond garbage (Score:5, Informative)
I quota from TFA: "Eclipse 3.1 lacks features that MonoDevelop has, including code completion, integrated debugging, refactoring, and unit testing capabilities"
Excuse me !? That stuff was even in Eclipse 2.0. Claiming a Java IDE without code completion exists is just stupid.
Another quota from TFA "Most Java developers on Linux use JetBrains IntelliJ, he claimed. IntelliJ is a commercial product that is not open source."
Who says most developers use IntelliJ, I personally know NONE. Everybody I know is on Eclipse or Netbeans.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the article. This article is written by one bunch of ill informed people.
How much money do I need to pay to get an article on the frontpage ? Do I get a volume discount if I want five of them ?
Re:This is beyond garbage (Score:5, Informative)
Why is he talking about Eclipse 3.1 anyway? 3.5 just came out, 3.4 came out a year ago, 3.3 a year before that, 3.2 a year before that...
Does he talk about .NET 1.0? I doubt it.
The only problem Eclipse 3.5 has is the minor hassle of getting SVN working, as it isn't integrated out of the box. I suspect this was because of subclipse and subversive bickering.
Re:This is beyond garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the version of Eclipse in Debian and Ubuntu is so far behind because the packagers haven't been able to produce a package of newer versions that runs using the GCJ native compiler, and they don't want to ship a version that uses the regular JVM. Why they would rather ship an ancient version of eclipse, than ship a java program that uses the JVM, I do not know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, Eclipse's code completion, integrated debugging and especially refactoring capabilities are stellar. Can Visual Studio do "extract to local variable" and "extract to method"?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do I get a volume discount if I want five of them ?
Only if they are all the same article.
Re:This is beyond garbage (Score:5, Funny)
Can Mono/.NET do this? (Score:2)
Can an informed authority tell me whether Mono or Microsoft's .NET can stream data over the internet? Very useful in Forex Trading. This [netdania.com] is what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course it can. It has support for sockets and anything else you would need to stream things.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fact is: Java and .NET can do pretty much the same things and it mostly comes down to prefference
C# and the CLR are a superset of Java and some of the extra features are essential to many people: value types, multidimensional arrays, real templates, unsafe modules, better multi-language support, direct calls to C, and excellent bindings to native libraries. And the fact that C# encourages use of platform specific libraries is a big advantage to many.
So, I think in many cases, it's not preference, it's driv
Compatibility != Equality (necessarily) (Score:2)
For that reason, I think a lot of developers have avoided it on Windows and since Windows has such a market share, if you're primarily a Window
Re:Compatibility != Equality (necessarily) (Score:5, Insightful)
...and we've had almost no exposure to the GUI packages in Java or C, which have a bit of a learning curve even for the educated.
Actually, GUI programming in Java via Swing is really quite nice. There's a little bit of a learning curve (not so much if you're already familiar with the GUI event model), but you can pick it up really quick. C on the other hand...I havn't really had any direct experience with creating GUI's in C/C++, but if I had to I'd probably pick up Qt (especially after Nokia LGPL'd it), as from what I hear it's quite a pleasure to work with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Swing is nice if you understand GUI programming. What the GP was saying, is that for those who have had very little exposure to GUIs in general, learning a GUI toolkit that requires you to understand event models, widget placement, and the rest of the "theory" of UI, is a bit brutal. Of course, once you grasp the basics, Swings' "everything is really a container when you get down to it, even non-container components" model is quite slick. .NET however has a much smoother learning curve. You can do most basi
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think the problem is that while Java is cross-platform, it's apps have always been treated like second-class citizens on Windows and Mac platforms.
It's even worse on Linux. Java's cross-platform features are a failure on all platforms.
Outpaces? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Outpaces" is one of those sketchy words often used to describe comparative speeds. It is almost a sure sign of a release designed to manipulate public opinion.
e.g.: If Microsoft is growing at 3% annually, and my small one-man software company is growing at 20% annually -- I can put out a press-release saying that I'm "Outpacing Microsoft". But that doesn't mean I'm creating real competition for Microsoft.
Disclosure: I haven't RTFA -- I'm just calling b.s. on semantics...
Re:Outpaces? (Score:4, Funny)
If you are going to post a comment, at least have the decency to RTFA first. I would give an example of why you should, and show how your statements are false based on the content of TFA, but I haven't read it yet...
Re:look at the numbers (Score:4, Informative)
So care to enlighten me which other 8 applications get removed if you remove Mono?
Here are a bunch of them: Tomboy, Banshee, F-Spot, Gnome Do, Beagle, Blam, Muine, Tangerine, Hipo, gTwitter, Last Exit, Graphmonkey, Giver, Drapes, Cowbell, Bless, gBrainy, autopano-sift.
Not the kind of articles to get linked by /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to see here. Move on.
I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
Mono is becoming popular for Linux development because it does not try to be cross platform. It feels much more natural than Java programming.
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Interesting)
It feels much more natural than Java programming.
chmod +x ./natural.exe
export DLLPATH=/usr/lib/libmono.dll
Yeah, right. Natural.
No code completion or debugger? (Score:5, Informative)
"Eclipse 3.1 lacks features that MonoDevelop has, including code completion, integrated debugging, refactoring, and unit testing capabilities, Hargett claimed. "I've found in my consulting that people who install Eclipse 3.1 through the [Debian] package manager say, 'This is terrible.' " He said that customers that have installed a version of Eclipse beyond 3.1 like it."
Just out of curiosity, I just downloaded a copy of Eclipse 1.0. This build is from November 2001.
http://archive.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-1.0-200111070001/index.php [eclipse.org]
For the record, it has code completion and integrated debugging. I do remember back in 2004 thinking IntelliJ IDEA's refactoring support was far better, so I suppose that was roughly the 3.0 timeframe. I guess I could track the JUnit plugin history and see which version of Eclipse started including this, but I think I've already made my point. I've got nothing against Mono, but geeze, what a load of BS...
What does distros have to do with it? (Score:3, Informative)
The story also touches on the failure of Linux distros to keep pace with Eclipse.
What does that even mean? Does anyone ever get their eclipse from the distro?
Eclipse installation is an unzip... I mean WTF does that mean?
Java vs. C# is the wrong comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux Desktop: Not freakin' Swing! (Score:5, Insightful)
A major fault that I've seen in numerous sub-threads is the idea that a Java user interface equals Swing. It most certainly does not. Swing is merely Java's complete pure-Java (i.e. cross-platform) user interface geared towards providing a unified look-and-feel. In this respect, it does a good job. While there's nothing inherently wrong with it from a toolkit perspective, it is absolutely not appropriate for usage on the Linux desktop.
Programming for the Linux desktop means more than producing a windowed application; one must integrate their application, both in terms of user interface consistency and application interoperabililty, with a major desktop distribution. Specifically, I'm talking about Linux's "big two" desktop environments, KDE + Qt and GNOME + GTK+. While each of these environments have their preferred languages (C++ and C respectively), many other languages have no issues whatsoever being tightly integrated into them via bindings.
Java is no exception! In Java, I can program a wonderful GNOME/GTK+ application just fine with java-gnome [sourceforge.net]. Similarly, I can program a Qt4 application with Qt Jambi [gitorious.org] (although I can't seem to find an equivalent KDE4 bindings library) in Java. An application written in either will appear and operate on par with any application written in other languages, either natively (via C or C++) or via another bindings library (Python [python.org] has a ton [sourceforge.net] of [python.org] bindings [pygtk.org]).
Furthermore, just like GTK+ and Qt have cross-platform capability, so do the bindings, and if the appropriate binding library for a given platform is installed on that platform, the Java application, too, will be able to be cross-platform without modification. This is, of course, the job of the distribution and/or installer software, but operates similar to the Deluge [deluge-torrent.org] (Python) installer for Windows, installing the client port of the toolkit (GTK+, in this case) and the language bindings (PyGTK) alongside the application.
That's exactly how the Mono desktop applications work: they write their logic in native C# and use GTK+ bindings (GTK# [mono-project.com], in most cases) to integrate with the Linux desktop environment.
Any Java application written for the Linux desktop that uses Swing over native desktop bindings is foolish. Each has their place, for sure, but on the desktop integration is everything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but on the desktop integration is everything.
I hate integration. It means that a single update of a single package can bring the whole thing down. Honestly if i want to play music I don't give a carrots ass if its using the same font as the bloody word pad. I just want to play the friken music... I don't give a flip if it stores the setting in some kde standard place if it has crap playlist editing.... etc...
Whats the point of looking all nice and integrated if it doesn't bloody work? Which is why the bulk of the apps i use and find productive are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, just like GTK+ and Qt have cross-platform capability, so do the bindings, and if the appropriate binding library for a given platform is installed on that platform, the Java application, too, will be able to be cross-platform without modification. This is, of course, the job of the distribution and/or installer software
This is not a trivial step. There will always be advantages to pure Java code, the most obvious being it runs anywhere you have a JVM, and installs and behaves exactly the same way with no platform dependent code.
Jeez. (Score:3, Funny)
More popular? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's like saying that hydrochloric acid is more popular as a drink than hydrofluoric acid.
Both environments are massive messes of overcomplicated languages with even more overcomplicated infrastructure, stuffed with random libraries and lovingly wrapped with overinflated egos of their designers and developers, and wankery of the users who think, it's the second coming of Lisp.
At this point there are five good choices for developing a new non-game GUI-centric application for Linux (or anything except Windows-only or OSX-only applications):
1. C++/Qt (KDE and everything useful in it, Opera, QCad, countless commercial applications).
2. C/GTK (GNOME and everything useful in it, X-Chat, Pidgin).
3. C++/GTK (OpenOffice.org).
4. Python/Qt.
5. Python/GTK.
This covers everything anyone would want in a GUI-centric application -- the five reasons I have seen for other combinations are:
1. As attempt to promote some crappy environment or a "my first application in <crappy environment>" project that got out of hand (Tomboy, Banshee).
2. Out of ignorance (all "enterprise applications" where Java was chosen because it's supposed to be "cross-platform").
3. A minimal update for some old application that was written before the above five choices became available (the only reason why I still have Motif installed).
4. The application IS an environment designed specifically for some set of goals (Emacs, Mozilla).
5. As a wrapper over something someone already written.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course not. Java hasn't improved over time. It is exactly the way it was in version 1. All you can build with it is very slow animated buttons and stuff for web pages.
Are you kidding me? Comparing Java 1 with .NET (which is a copy of Java 1.4 without maintaining backwards compatibility)?
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
A lot has changed in the last 10 years. Your comment is very telling, and not very helpful. It's so bad, it's not even wrong. I'm sorry that's what you think.
With .NET, there is loads of stuff built in so I am not doing a lot of low level coding.
There are orders of magnitude more stuff "built-in" to Java (the platform), 3rd-party stuff, independent implementations, and it's had a good decade and a half of hardening in real-world situations (top businesses etc.)
gcc even has a java (the language) compiler now (OK for about 5 years) that generates native machine code (what everyone used to whinge about) and there are independent implementations of the Java libraries (e.g. GNU Classpath).
Mono needs to die a death. Please ignore it and hopefully it will go away.
Re: (Score:2)
There are orders of magnitude more stuff "built-in" to Java (the platform),
I don't think you know exactly what that term means. The BCL of 3.5 .NET framework defines 294 libraries which each contain hundreds of interfaces, classes, enumerations, structures, delegates, etc. So now to do the math according to you Java must have at least 2 orders of magnitude more of everything (as you said orders) so if your claim is correct Java contains at least 29400 built-in libraries for a combined total of 2940000 interfaces, classes, structures, etc. I'm sorry, but the facts just don't bea
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds about right from my last excursion with Java :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you look at the Java 6 API there are only about 205 packages.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
This must be a meaning of the word 'only' that I wasn't previously aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
The Wolf Crows at MidAfternoon... (Score:5, Funny)
Java is dying. Python is good so is C#. I love attributes, LINQ, Master Pages, etc.
I'm not an MS fan, but C# is just so nice.
For the record I'm writing this on my debian sid laptop using Iceweasel.
Programming is fun. Did you know that rabbits aren't rodents? Storm clouds are the ones they call cumulonimbus. I forgot to bring lunch today so I ate my hat. In "Transformers: Masterforce" they showed news clippings in which the Destrons were referred to as "Decepticons", that seemed like a nice nod to the Transformers we knew in America... I'm going to write an Emacs clone that uses Brainfuck for its scripting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Wolf Crows at MidAfternoon... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to write an Emacs clone that uses Brainfuck for its scripting.
Sweet. Let me know if you want some help with that. I'm interested in writing a vi mode for something like that. In Java.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to write an Emacs clone that uses Brainfuck for its scripting.
You realize that if you actually did this, you would become a god. That might prove inconvenient for many of the powers that be.
Yeah, then they'd probably maneuver me from the shadows, hiding their conspiracy with the protective prescience of a Guild Steersman, and make various attempts to either get me under their thumb or turn me into something that I hate so much that I'll die rather than let it continue...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You obviously don't work with .NET on a daily basis. Same crap different syntax, different names on the box..
I use it almost every day and in many ways I prefer it to Java (though I use Java often too for certain things it does better). I never get why people cares so much about what languages other people like to code in.
Client Profile is 28 MB (Score:5, Informative)
200+ is for all the developer goo.
The Client Profile for .NET 3.5 SP1, which is all that's needed to install a .NET app on a machine that doesn't have .NET 3, is 28 MiB.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912.aspx [microsoft.com]
And Silverlight is less than 5 MiB if the app can run entirely in the Silverlight sandbox.
Mono is 75 MiB on Windows, 56 MiB on Mac, . Moonlight is (really?) 941 KiB.
Re:Client Profile is 28 MB (Score:4, Informative)
200+ is for all the developer goo.
Not quite true. The client profile cuts out a lot of useful functionality (e.g. LINQ), to the point where you might as well target .NET 2.0 instead.
That said, the total size needed for an online installation of 3.5 SP1 on Vista is ~50 MB (since it comes preinstalled with 3.0), and mono is less than 20 MB.
The full 200 MB is only required for WinXP systems that don't have any version of the framework installed at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.
C# right now has the following features that are absent in Java:
1) LINQ !!!!
2) Delegates.
3) Anonymous types and type inference.
4) Reified generics.
5) Support for dynamic methods.
C# 1.0 was just a carbon copy of Java. C# 3, not so much.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
C# right now has the following features that are absent in Java
Right now Java has the following features that are absent in C#:
1) High performance VM
2) Code that does what it says without hidden conversions, text substitutions, and macros.
3) Other languages that are actually useful like Scala and Clojure.
Mono performance is a joke compared to Java, and MS CLR performance is even pretty bad in comparison. Code that is a one-liner because of lots of magic conversions and macros (like 'extension' methods) collects fanboys, but is counter productive for real, boring, meat and potatoes coding.
And LINQ? Why are you doing database and 'data sources' queries in something like C#? Use python or something like that. You need that super-fast JIT "cc -O0" speed to print out customer numbers and such?
Basically Java:C# :: C:C++. It's the same story all over again, but for typesafe languages instead of the systems code. C# thinks that making the code a concise series of magic conversions and convenient syntax makes it a better language. Java thinks that having code be straightforward and simple, but longer, is better. C has a solid niche, and will for decades. C++ is widely recognized as a byzantine failure in every case. We'll have to wait and see with Java and C#, but I know where I'd place my bets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
.NET is actually FASTER on Windows than Java. Mono is about 15% slower, which still isn't bad, since it takes up far less RAM than Java in 64 bit mode.
There are no "macros" or text substitutions in C#. You can inspect IL fairly easily using Reflector.
LINQ kicks ass for just the functional aspect of it.
Sorry, dude, you're talking out of your ass.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
"C# is VB with C syntax."
Sorry. You don't know a shit about C#.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Friend, I _wrote_ a JVM implementation.
I know how garbage collector works in Sun JVM to the level of assembly language generated for write barriers, I know how HotSpot compiles byte-code, etc.
Well, the current C# is not very much like Java. It's actively moving towards functional languages (while Java is not moving anywhere) to the point where you can write purely-functional lazy-evaluated functions as LINQ expressions, something crazy like this: http://blogs.msdn.com/lukeh/archive/2007/10/01/taking-linq-to-objects-to-extremes-a-fully-linqified-raytracer.aspx [msdn.com]
VB is not a bastardized Java, it's a separate language (quite powerful in its VB.NET form), related to C#. It even has a few features not accessible from C#.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
C# is VB with C syntax. VB is Microsoft's bastardized version of Java.
JDK 1.0: Jan 1996
VB 1.0: May 1991
VB was at 4.0 by the time Java was released.
If by "VB" you mean VB.Net, I would say it's the reverse: C# is Microsoft's "bastardized version" of Java (though mostly better IMO), and VB.Net is C# with VB syntax.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a Microsoft trap and it's a solution looking for a problem. I wouldn't mind if there wasn't the constant, implied threat of Microsoft suing the distributors/users of Mono (patents).
It's yet another platform to maintain and support and more complexity for distributions.
Very importantly, it is confusing in that it appears to make the .NET platform legitimate as a cross-platform, Open Standard. It is neither.
If you buy SuSE Linux, you are probably safe from Microsoft legal action.
With Mono I've had the pleasure of a light (and fun) rewrite of many of my applications for cross-platform compatibility
And with Java, you wouldn't have had to rewrite anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes they do. A handwritten recipe for cookies is executable, it just runs on a different class of machine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By that definition, both produce surprisingly lean executables.
Re:Eclipse is stagnating (Score:5, Informative)
The difference between Eclipse 3.4 and 3.2 is night and day when you actually use it.
Just because it looks the same (a shock to people who might want to change their hentai GTK theme every week) doesn't mean it is the same.
It's like those idiots that uses Java 1.1 in 1998 and think that Java 6 is pretty much the same.
Porting other langauages : (Score:2, Informative)
Please see this [java-source.net].
Yours In Parentheses,
Kilgore Trout
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Keeping themselves on the Swing train instead of evolving things like SWT was among Sun's greatest mistakes IMHO. :(
It looks horrible on all platforms, because it needs to work on all platforms without using native controls.
Sure, it's *hard* to make native controls work out well in cross-platform apps, but with enough thought put into it, it can be done pretty well after all. Qt is quite successful, for example. There have been apps I've thought was native using Win32 or GTK, when they were built on Qt. And
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Swing used the abstraction from the OS -because- of the inter-OS incompatibility between widgets. AWT uses native OS widgets throughout if that's your bread and butter. They subsequently added OS theme engines back into Swing due to the inconsistencies between everything. I don't have a problem with swing as it is at this point. Since 1.5's metal, the platform agnostic look and feels have really come upon their own. SWT has a few bases filled in by containing a larger set of widgets, and arguably better set
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My biggest reason for C#/.Net instead of Java?
Visual Studio
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Strangely, I do Java work as my day job in Eclipse and C# in my spare time using Visual Studio (2005 Express) and MonoDevelop. While I prefer C# as a language overall, I'd much rather have something like Eclipse for C#! There's so much more power to it in terms of refactoring and other features that it puts the minimal functionality that Visual Studio always had to shame.
Re:No mention of X-platform (Score:5, Informative)
Well, except that in reality there are lots of implementations of non-Java languages for the JVM, several of which (Jython and JRuby, among others) have Sun resources behind them, and some of which are even Sun created (Fortress, JavaFX Script.) There were non-Java languages for the JVM before .NET existed.
Re: (Score:2)
The Java VM was a good idea, but Sun never bothered to port other languages to it. With Mono you get a choice of languages, a common library, and apps that really can run anywhere without a whole lot of extra work.
You mean copying the Smalltalk VM was a good idea. And there are many dynamic languages that run on the JavaVM now.
Re:No mention of X-platform (Score:5, Interesting)
>> Think of network sockets, file access, threads, and a bunch of other things that quite frankly are annoying to do in C or C++.
You're just using the wrong C++ libraries.
Using Qt I can do all the things you mentioned and just about everything else in the C# and Java class libraries. Cross platform, without the performance and resource penalty of a virtual machine. Also the final product will appear more native on more platforms than C# or Java.
Also because of Qt's design, I barely have to bother with memory management in my GUI apps. So far I'm averaging one delete statement per 1000 lines of code. Everything else is cleaned up automatically. If I thought a bit harder about my design I could probably get rid of most of those deletes as well.
Re:No mention of X-platform (Score:4, Informative)
You might want to research before posting next time. There are more JVM-based languages than there are CLR-based languages.
Re:No mention of X-platform (Score:5, Informative)
Both the JVM and the CIL engines can be used to run any programming language you want. They are both turing complete systems, so there is not really anything that will prevent you from targeting any language to run on top of either one of them.
The difference is that the JVM was designed for Java, and Java only.
The CLI originally ran a variation of C++ (they internally called it SMC, or "Smack") and later they created C# and retargeted VB to run on top of it.
But even before this went public, they launched an effort called "Project 7". The goal of this group was to port 7 proprietary languages and 7 research/open source languages to the CIL engine and learn from the exercise what changes were required to make the implementation more efficient. A large number of changes went directly into .NET 1.0, and they allowed the CIL to be a more efficient runtime for running C, C++, Eiffel, Fortran and Cobol than the JVM could. Direct memory manipulation, arbitrary vtable layouts, tail call optimizations all went into .NET 1.0
With .NET 2.0 a new round of languages was tried. The research on ILX and OCaml (mostly using F#) was introduced into the virtual machine, making generic types first-class citizens in the VM, not just entities that were emulated (as they remain to this day in Java). The feedback from Eiffel lead to the introduction of covariance and contravariance in the virtual machine, another feature missing from Java.
The work from Jim Hugunning on IronPython also drove the adoption of new low-level APIs that assisted the runtime in better supporting dynamic languages, all of these features appeared in .NET 2.0 and 3.5.
So certainly, you can target anything into anything else, at the end of the day, everything is running on top of some CPU. The difference is that with .NET you have to jump through less hoops, and the runtime is richer for language developers.
So in Java you can certainly emulate pointers and malloc for building a C compiler. The emulation will tkae the form of "Allocate big array, and emulate pointer operations there". Possible, but not very efficient.
Generics is another area that helped languages like C# get generics that actually make sense, and do not require a PhD to understand. This is an important difference: in Java generics are emulated, in C# they are native to the environment.
That being said, if you like Java, by all means, keep using Java.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Concerning type erasure, as it has been pointed out by my sibling-thread, it's a design choice. Scala also has adopted type erasure with generics. The other choice could have been made, that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, "Type Erasure" means that none of the semantic information is preserved in the produced bytecode or metadata.
This has several problems, for example, the following is invalid in Java:
class Stack {
T [] storage;
Init ()
{
storage = new T [20];
}
}
You might want to read "Generic Gotchas" for Java. There is no such problem with the C# version as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Right, "Type Erasure" means that none of the semantic information is preserved in the produced bytecode or metadata."
I understand, and I can live with that.
It is not is if you can not do something, it just requires a more verbose approach e.g.
class Stack {
private T[] storage;
public Stack(Class type, int size) {
Re:No mention of X-platform (Score:5, Informative)
Think of network sockets, file access, threads, and a bunch of other things that quite frankly are annoying to do in C or C++.
Not if you use Qt which has all of those and more in addition to the GUI stuff.
Qt is a cross-platform library, not just a GUI library.
Qt-based apps run on Linux, Windows, Mac, Solaris, Symbian S60 ...
What are you using for the GUI in Mono? Windows Forms? You could have the full power of Qt via Qyoto...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If your idea of Cross Platform is API's designed for Windows with all other platforms being an afterthought...
Minor correction (Score:3, Funny)
Write any app you want with any language you choose. Run it on anything you wish.... But if it is mono-based or has any mono-dependency whatsoever, it's not going to run on any hardware that I own. I avoid mono-apps and won't install any distro in which mono is a part of the default install. I'll believe mono is safe when I see Steve Ballmer, Richard Stallman, Steve Jobs, and Theo de Raadt singing "Koombaya" together on the same stage
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was speaking in Middle English!
In this context, "Yea" is a perfectly acceptable word to use when starting a sentence.
Re:no mono (Score:5, Insightful)
It rained here this morning, that means it must have rained all over the world.
Re:no mono (Score:5, Funny)
Actually it did not rain here today so I am highly dubious about you're claim that it rained where you are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it was a precipitation superposition here today, so I find both of your claims highly suspect and extremely plausible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that, theoretically, java apps are fast, compile well, and so on... but in practice, they just feel like trudging through sludge. Every single time. Perhaps that's just because I'm dealing with them on the desktop, instead of on the server... but sti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Banshee guys, the Beagle guys, the Blam! guysm the Diva guys, the DotNet BlogEngine guys, the GNOME Do guys, the F-Spot guys, the FusionFall guys, the Graffiti CMS guys, the iFolder 3 guys, the KeePass 2 guys, the Second Life guys, the MonoTorrent guys, the Muine guys, the PHP4Mono guys, the Smuxi guys, the Sky Net guys, the Unity guys and the VistaDB guys. Just to name a few.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have just got to be kidding. For Windows it's just a .zip that you unpack, then run eclipse.exe. Make a shortcut if it helps. For Linux it's a tar and you can use a graphical archiver for that too. If a "software developer" can't work that out, I don't want to be anywhere near their code. It takes more clicks just to create a new project than to install Eclipse!