Board index » kylix » Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix


2003-11-12 11:29:06 PM
kylix2
"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
IMO .NET is as cross-platform as Win32: There are implementations of
Win32 on other platforms (see winelib), but this does not make it a
real-cross-platform environment.
IMO, "cross platform" is one of the most abused and over rated buzzwords of
our time.
In practice, "cross-platform" most often means "cross-*nix". In the case
of Mono, this is precisely what is required; a unified, standardized
"cross-Linux" environment that introduces some order to the chaos that is
Open Source.
100% compatibility with Windows .NET would be nice but is not an absolute
necessity for success.
 
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

On 12-Nov-03, JQP said:
Quote
This is a standard that they personally crafted, submitted and
promoted thru a recognized standards organization. Do you have a
similar example from the past?
Lack of evidence has never stopped the natterers.
--
Bill
--------
"We may become the first society destroyed by its own experts --
especially experts in fields where there is no expertise that can be
verified by facts." -- Thomas Sowell
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com>wrote in message
Quote
and that would be different from past behavior?
This is a standard that they personally crafted, submitted and promoted thru
a recognized standards organization. Do you have a similar example from the
past?
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

Quote
In order for MS to do as you suggest, they'll have to violate the standard
that they put in place.
That is what they do all the time to force their customers to pay for
upgrades <g>.
Unfortunately the official standard covers the "CIL" virtual processor.
But additionally there are thousands of components (API calls) that come
with the Framework and can be used by the assembly. Some of them are
defined to be platform specific and thus can be avoided by the
programmer (if the compiler offers this possibility). (Using them can
offer additional speed, beauty or platform specific functions.)
Additional components will be defined by microsoft and supposedly just
used by the programmers and/or compiler maker without any warning. Those
functions need to exist in all platforms in a compatible way.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Additional components will be defined by microsoft and supposedly just
used by the programmers and/or compiler maker without any warning. Those
functions need to exist in all platforms in a compatible way.
As I said elsewhere, 100% MS compatibility would be nice but it is not an
absolute requirement in order for Mono to be a success.
From the latest SD Times, page 35; ".NET Progress worries Java" by Andrew
Binstock: www.sdtimes.com/download/images/SDTimes089.pdf
"If a hardware platform is inexpensive and ubiquitous, the problem of app
portability loses much of it's urgency, except for true zealots."
Some of the biggest Java "zealots" are those who have found themselves
"boxed in" by proprietary, over priced hardware and desperately want an
escape route. For most of the rest of the world, app portability is kinda
nice but not a real pressing issue.
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3fb251a1$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
IMO, "cross platform" is one of the most abused and over rated
buzzwords of our time.
abused, yes. But propably not over rated.
Quote
In practice, "cross-platform" most often means "cross-*nix". In the
case of Mono, this is precisely what is required; a unified,
standardized "cross-Linux" environment that introduces some order to
the chaos that is Open Source.
100% compatibility with Windows .NET would be nice but is not an
absolute necessity for success.
I think they will not reach full compatbility. Not because they are not
capable to do it, but rather because of MS.
.NET is different than Java. In the case of Java, Sun wants that every
implementation is 100 % compatible. In the caes of .NET, Microsoft
standardisized a small part of the framework and will propably not
support, and rather fight, 100 % compatible implementations of the full
framework.
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3fb251a1$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
In order for MS to do as you suggest, they'll have to violate the
standard that they put in place.
Would not be the first time. And only a small part is a real standard. The
rest is MS-propriatary.
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

JQP wrote:
Quote
Some of the biggest Java "zealots" are those who have found themselves
"boxed in" by proprietary, over priced hardware and desperately want an
escape route. For most of the rest of the world, app portability is kinda
nice but not a real pressing issue.
What in the h*ll are you talking about? How does Java lock you into
anything>
Do you really think that cellphone or a standard 299.00 PC is a proprietary
overpriced piece of hardware?
Windows locks you in, Java frees you, as does Perl, Python.
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

Andreas Prucha wrote:
Quote
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3fb251a1$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :

>IMO, "cross platform" is one of the most abused and over rated
>buzzwords of our time.

abused, yes. But propably not over rated.

You have to understand JQP. He thinks that the Enterprises run their mission
critical apps on MS Windows.. Really!!
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

"pNichols" wrote
Quote

What in the h*ll are you talking about? How does Java lock
you into anything>

Do you really think that cellphone or a standard 299.00 PC
is a proprietary overpriced piece of hardware?
Just a guess, but he was probably referring to server side rather than
client side lock in. Proprietary server extensions are hardly an unknown
issue.
www.artima.com/intv/froth5.html
Google on proprietary j2ee server extensions
bobD
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

Bob Dawson wrote:
Quote
"pNichols" wrote
>
>What in the h*ll are you talking about? How does Java lock
>you into anything>
>
>Do you really think that cellphone or a standard 299.00 PC
>is a proprietary overpriced piece of hardware?

Just a guess, but he was probably referring to server side rather than
client side lock in. Proprietary server extensions are hardly an unknown
issue.

www.artima.com/intv/froth5.html
Google on proprietary j2ee server extensions

bobD
About App Servers, there is some tie in here, agreed. If you use OSS here,
however, not a problem either. This is a choice you or an IT shop can make,
go proprietary or not. In MS world (of which JQP is a part and a rabid
fan), there is no choice <G>.
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

On 24-Nov-03, pNichols said:
Quote
Windows locks you in, Java frees you, as does Perl, Python.
But of course, Java, Perl, and Python are pretty far off-topic here.
--
Bill
--------
"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

On 2003-11-12, Michael Schnell < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>A lot of people raised their concerns regarding Mono, especially
>the possible reaction of Microsoft to it down the road in the next
>couple of years (IP issues, etc.).
>

I suppose Microsoft will see that Mono will have problems running
assemblies created by Microsoft compilers. But Borland should be able to
make their assemblies "mono compatible".
Afaik Delphi.net use WinForms, which is not Mono compat, and not on the
roadmap for the coming 1 1/2 years afaik.
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

Marco van de Voort wrote:
Quote
Afaik Delphi.net use....
maybe you should try to educate yourself
a bit before spreading FUD.
Martin
 

Re:Re: The (SAD) future of Kylix

Quote
>abused, yes. But propably not over rated.
p>You have to understand JQP. He thinks that the Enterprises run their
p>mission critical apps on MS Windows.. Really!!
Moreover i saw many enterprises that run critical apps on MS Windows.
Successfully.
NB! Windows = NT class OS
---
Andrew V. Fionik, Papillon Systems, Unix Programmers Group
For reply use "ender" instead of "fionika" in e-mail.