Re: GNOME, .Net and Mono

On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 14:07, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2002, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > 
> > There are a few bits in the .NET VM (from here on referred as the CLI)
> > that make it intereting:
> > 
> > 	* Support for ValueTypes (a value type is a struct, or any kind
> > 	  of contiguous memory).  Required for supporting languages like
> > 	  C and C++ who use structs and allocate arrays of structs.
> > 
> > 	* Pointer support.  This is required to implement languages like
> > 	  C, C++, Fortran, Cobol and Pascal.
> > 
> > 	* Tail calls.  Required to implement efficiently things like
> > 	  Lisp and Haskell.
> Miguel .. forgive me my ignorancy and not so good english. GNOME was
> developed mainly without this kind "bloat" languages like C++, Haskel,
> Lisp (God why sawmill is so huge ? .. God blease AS programmers ;) and
> this is *very good* fundament.

Large parts of GNOME are actually coded in these various languages.  Not
core components, but many applications.  Without support for these
"bloat" languages, GNOME wouldn't be a very widely used environment at

> Now You want say we me must change this now and try to kill this work in 
> way which is performed by KDE team ?
> Simple .. why ? I don't see around any valuable products ("Open Products")
> which uses this programing enviroment. Why now we must change this and for
> perform "another way" for grow compecity ? Is it realy *neccessary* ?

Well, .Net is new.  There isn't much for it *now*.  When Python or Perl
first came out, there weren't any apps programmed in them, either.

> > There was a lot of feedback from language vendors to Microsoft on
> > features that were needed to implement their compilers to target this
> > platform.  
> OK if Microsoft will see anything valueable in GNOME why Bill not try
> invest own programers for make .NET code for GNOME ? For me this looks
> like You want say we must prepare some code olny because "Microssoft exist
> somewhere" ? Why we sill can't continue development for prepare what *we*
> need ? This like never won figting. IMHO if someone is thinkinfg about
> wining with MS (not just me) IMHO best way is ignore this firm on proper
> level and prepare something in "so best way as possible".

Well, .Net is a technology.  I don't think GNOME using .Net has anything
to do with Microsoft, just like if you use Java doesn't mean you are a
Sun wanna-be.

The point MIguel was making was that Microsoft put a lot of thought,
including other developers', into making the .Net VM.  It is capable of
supporting *many* different languages, all in this one VM.  The VM is
also capable of high performance, and JIT, which many other VM's *can't*
do.  Basically, a language like Perl or Ruby will (theoretically at this
point in time, anyways) run much faster using Mono and .Net than their
native VM's.

This actually increases the speed of apps/scripts based on these
language, and (because there is just one VM versus many) reduces bloat.

> Now (slowly) with gnumeric and few other programs I can live without MS
> products aroud in growing and comfortable way. Probalby many GNOME
> programers was invest own time and talent for allow themeselve relize
> effective enviroment for allow materialize this kind target with only
> minimal compatibility area with "other enviroments" in so simple way as
> possible. Think .. how many from as now are thinking on MS and
> consequences existing this firm ? Realy so many ? How many from as was
> trying to develop sometring because "MS have someting" ? realy so many ?
> or how many from as was tring develop GNOME for have only (and simple)
> "good tool (TM)" ? IMHO *many* .. many from as was develop many things not
> because "MS have this" but "because this proper way" with looking on MS
> and/or *only* for consult/test own ideas is it correct or not (?) and
> *nothing* more.

Well, the funny thing, most of the big GNOME apps looks, feel, and act
just like Microsoft products.  ~,^  OK, OK, they're moving in their own
directions now (once the functionality they needed to compete with MS
was in place).

Simply said, tho, using Mono is no worse than using Evolution (basically
an Outlook clone).  Mono has technical advantages.  not wanting to use
it just because Microsoft made it is just as foolish as using something
simply because Microsoft has it.

Without .Net, we have no technology that can perform what Microsoft
plans will be able to do.  We *could* go ahead and make our own
environment, and then be completely incompatible with the rest of the
world, just for the sake of avoiding MS.  But that wouldn't make much
sense, now, would it?

> Simple IMHO tryimg adopt .NET now is like tring write program in Fortran
> using C language. Yes, we kwon it is possible but we know it is not best
> way because if you are writing C program best way for this is using C
> programing rules :_)

.Net doesn't replace C.  It replaces the higher-level languages (Python,
Perl) with a compataible language (no/little relearning is necessary). 
In truth, You *can* write C apps in .Net, without relearning anything. 
The advantage then is that the single compiled app runs on every
platform that has a .Net interpreter, *plus* with JIT it will run almost
as fast (if not as fast - heck, with the right optimizations, even

> I'm optmist and I think probably in next few month somebody will show how
> GNOME can be continue extending without .NET and in way much better than
> .NET .. only if it realy neccassary (maybe .. You :) Now before GNOME is
> release 2.0 .. IMHO it is not good time for thinking on so radical

GNOME 2.0 isn't going to included these drastic changes.  As stated,
it's something to *look into* for GNOME 3.0, possibly be ready by GNOME

> movements. Yes, it is good time for discuss how to prepare some elements
> for develop some functionalities but I don't think .NET is best whaat we
> need :) Maybe some aspect .NET technology are good .. maybe .. but probaby
> not all. Maybe using on some places VM will be good not still not at all

That's what Mono.  The parts of .Net that are good.  The rest has to be
there for compatibility.  But, with Open Source, we can extend it for
our platform and needs (just like MS likely will with their versions).

> places. Haskel, Lisp, C++ .. sorry not for me because this allow develop
> some things in simplet way but not some simple and soe faster way as I can
> imagine. I want develp harder but more effective/faster/smaller
> executables. IMHO thinking on .NET will be good thinking like way like on

Yes, you want to optimize.  Other people want to quickly create powerful
apps.  With the average home machine running 1ghz+ processors and RAM of
at least 256MB (by the time GNOME is using .Net anyways) we will have
the cycles/memory to spare for language like Python and so on
(especially in a VM like Mono).  Desktop apps don't need some of the
optimizations that things like games or scientific apps will need.

And, if you are going to use the argument that people will still be
using Pentium's with < 400 mhz processors and 128MB or less of RAM...
well, people with those machines have to be retarded to expect more
functionality without added cost.  they can continue using older
versions of GNOME, or switch to a lighter desktop (GNUstep perhaps?). 
If people don't want to have to upgrade their machines after 5 years,
then I hope they are happy with what their computers can do now, because
that's where it ends.

> current ORBit on begining. Before ORBit we have OLE as target, few CORBA
> implemntations as base *but* after this all was redeveped and now we have
> ORBit, bonobo and few other things which brings some functionalities in
> *much* bettter way than origins. KDE team some time ago was tring

I don't think I follow here.  .Net is pretty well thought out, and has
been for years.

> incorporate mico without deeper redeveloping. And what ? Nothig. Mico was
> droped and now IMHO KDE is without good alternatives for this. Why all
> this ? Because ORBit is *only* neccessary subset orginal functionalities
> prepared with "*I* need this" and nothing more in mind .. not because
> "some language vendors to Microsoft need this".

Ok, the KDE argument is against you.  KDE dropped a technology without
thinking it thru, so you say.  Thus, avoiding .Net without exploring its
useful would be the wrong thing to do, right?  ^,^

> regards
> kloczek
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> *Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm|*e-mail: kloczek rudy mif pg gda pl*

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