Re: GNOME, .Net and Mono

On 1 Feb 2002, Sean Middleditch wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 19:03, Gérard Milmeister wrote:
> > 


> Why then would being based on Mono, a fully Open Source codebase, be
> something to be worried about, any more than basing it on an "arcane"
> language like C (GNOME now) or a "bloated" language like C++ (KDE).  
> (And just for the record, my favorite languages are C and C++ - I just
> used the stereotypes for those languages).

A very legitimate reason not to want to use .NET is it being based on a
new, largely untried VM - if the goal really was to go with a VM, then
there are much older, tried and quite probbaly in the mid-term, better VMs
around than Mono. And this isn't a plug for java - its use of a VM is
nothing new.

> THe way I'm imagining being based on Mono would work is similar to how
> things are based on CORBA now, although perhaps better integrated,
> easier to work with, and in many cases faster.  Instead of making a
> CORBA call, you'd make a Mono call.
> Just because it's Mono, I don't think that means we'll be forced to use
> any of the (likely) security/stability problems with MS's
> implementation, or be forced to run closed code, or have to program in
> C#.  As I understand it, it'll be more like the ultimate wrapper, the
> ultime plugin architecture, the ultime scripting interface, etc. (or, at
> least, until someone invents something better.  ^,^)
> Or is there some deeper point I'm missing that would make it very bad
> for GNOME to go this way?  Would mono slow things down a lot, being
> interpreted bytecode in many cases?  Would mono possibly have
> unavoidable security concerns wrt untrusted code?  Would mono lock out
> certain languages?  Would mono force developers to use a restrictive
> license? (not in the GPL-type restrictive, either)

Mono uses developers to change how they work and use new (untried,
containing bugs, not optimising as well as they could/should) compilers. 

> I'm curious as to exactly *how* integrating GNOME with Mono makes things
> better, and what reaons there would be *not* to do this (other than that
> it would take a lot of work).

Maybe you should have figured these couple of things out to some extent
before writing that 'as I understand it it'll be more like the ultimate
wrapper, the ultime plugin architecture, the ultime scripting interface,
etc.' paragraph up there, or at least give some reasons...

yes, mono is a new, interesting and in many ways excting architecture -
whetever I want it to run significant parts of my desktop withinthe next 5
years, is another matter entirely.

As usual, all opinions are my own.


	I see a dark sail on the horizon
	Set under a dark cloud that hides the sun
	Bring me my Broadsword and clear understanding

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]