Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Cellphones Handhelds IOS Microsoft Open Source Programming Hardware

Mono Comes To Android 257

Posted by samzenpus
from the here-have-some dept.
hairyfeet writes "After releasing Monotouch for iPhone which allows c# development on iOS, Novell has announced the availability of Mono for Android. Will this give us the 'one language to rule them all' that Java failed to bring, or will the bad blood between the F/OSS groups and Microsoft make this a dead end?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mono Comes To Android

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:04PM (#35738644)

    Guess I won't be kissing it for a week or so.

    • You could just hold the phone upside-down. More fun for everyone!
  • Neither (Score:5, Insightful)

    by node 3 (115640) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:05PM (#35738658)

    Will this give us the 'one language to rule them all' that Java failed to bring, or will the bad blood between the F/OSS groups and Microsoft make this a dead end?

    Neither. It will be exactly what it already is today, just one of many programming languages.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nicholas22 (1945330)
      No, it will be less than current *platforms* (as Mono is not a language) and the reason for this is because Microsoft can wipe the floor with it at any point it feels like.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Gadget_Guy (627405) *

        ...the reason for this is because Microsoft can wipe the floor with it at any point it feels like.

        The same FUD has been used for the last seven years, and Microsoft is still yet to "wipe the floor". As each year passes without the predicted backlash, your suggestion looks more and more like it should come with a free tinfoil hat!

        There is no indication at all that Microsoft is unhappy with Mono. In fact, Microsoft needs the Mono project to give its .NET platform legitimacy as a cross platform solution. If it tried to stop Mono then it would only serve to scare developers away from .NET completely.

        • Re:Neither (Score:4, Insightful)

          by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @08:21PM (#35739770)
          Microsoft doesn't care about Mono for the same reason as Wine - because it doesn't - and never will - work well enough to be a factor either way. My two most recent encounters with it were: 1) trying to run the Netflix .net video player (doesn't work) and 2) trying to use the (only) free online tax filing site [freefilefi...eforms.com] (surprise! also doesn't work).

          "But that's just because (blah blah blah)!!"

          Exactly.

          • by Giometrix (932993)
            I just clicked the tax site and it said I needed flash (I'm on an iPad). Is there a .net executable somewhere in there? The Netflix thing is a bummer, but it's a case of drm not being compatible with open source, as I see it. DRM sucks, but as far as I can tell, Netflix can't exist without it.
            • Re:Neither (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @11:25PM (#35740912)

              The Netflix thing is a bummer, but it's a case of drm not being compatible with open source, as I see it.

              It seems to me the problem is that DRM is incompatible with people owning their personal property. There is nothing stopping you from writing an open source program that encrypts movies while they're in transit over a network etc. And then people will break the DRM in two hours just like they do with the proprietary ones.

              The real incompatibility is in allowing the user to own their computer. Even if you have proprietary software, if the user can attach a debugger to it or can emulate the whole thing in software then the DRM is toast. The only way that DRM can "work" is by eliminating actual property ownership. It literally requires for us all to become renters and trespassers on what was once our own property, so that corporations can own our culture. I mean literally -- it's not an exaggeration.

              DRM sucks, but as far as I can tell, Netflix can't exist without it.

              Over-the-air broadcast TV exists without it. In higher quality than Netflix. So I'm not seeing the inherent reason why Netflix can't exist without it.

              • by Giometrix (932993)

                DRM sucks, but as far as I can tell, Netflix can't exist without it.

                Over-the-air broadcast TV exists without it. In higher quality than Netflix. So I'm not seeing the inherent reason why Netflix can't exist without it.

                My assumption is that the movie studios require it, or at least require it if Netflix wants to obtain licenses at a reasonable rate. I can be wrong, but I have a strong feeling that the movie studios have a big part in this.

              • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

                by hairyfeet (841228)

                Uhhh...FUD much? Why didn't you just scream "DRM kills kittehs!" and "information wants to be free, like a bird!" while you're at it? Netflix movies are rentals and they have to have at least some token something or there would be instant copy software released an then bye bye Netflix. You also have NO choice on broadcast, and it comes with commercials, a whole shitload of them, and it is also cut. You don't get those things with Netflix.

                BTW, the reason Netflix don't (and never will) work on Linux? it requi

          • Microsoft doesn't care about Mono for the same reason as Wine - because it doesn't - and never will - work well enough to be a factor either way.

            Only if you assume that the point of Mono is to run .NET apps. True, that is what it can do to some extent, but it is also a development platform of its own (which is what TFA is all about). Developing using Mono is the best way to ensure you have a cross platform program.

            Applications developed using the base Mono libraries will work on Mono and .NET runtime. You can use libraries that will not run on Microsoft's .NET (the reverse of the problem that you had). The ultimate example is if you develop somethin

            • by gbjbaanb (229885)

              Now that would be an interesting development - Mono first embracing then extending .NET (you know what follows).

          • by dudpixel (1429789)

            but surely you would concede that mono as an API in its own right would be fine. Just another alternative way to write Android apps.

        • Re:Neither (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jrumney (197329) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @08:59PM (#35740056) Homepage
          How long did it take Microsoft to start wiping the floor with their VFAT patents? Note the "at any point it feels like" in the GP's statement.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Gadget_Guy (627405) *

            VFAT was never covered by Microsoft with a Microsoft Community Promise, have patent grants under MS-PL or Apache2 licenses, be covered by the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, or be directly specified by patent covenants. There are parts of .NET that are not explicity covered by these various patent grants, but 1) you don't have to use them and 2) (AFAIK) they are not used in these versions of Mono for Mobile phones.

            Microsoft never touted VFAT as a cross platform technology like it did with .NET. The de

      • Mono is not a language

        Although you are technically correct that Mono is not a language, Mono IS a mechanism to use the C# language.

        From there to actually develop applications for the iPhone, you make use of the Apple frameworks, which Mono has handily wrapped in C# wrappers.

        So I wouldn't say it's "less" than anything, it's just basically a way to use C# for different platforms while still using the native libraries they offer.

      • by dudpixel (1429789)

        No - this is wrong.

        The danger is that Microsoft can steer future versions in a path that only helps them.

        They cant take away mono or do anything to stop it in its current form. So any apps written for mono as it is today, are fine.

        The danger with mono is in betting your future on it...but the same danger exists with many other APIs too.

      • by exomondo (1725132)

        No, it will be less than current *platforms* (as Mono is not a language) and the reason for this is because Microsoft can wipe the floor with it at any point it feels like.

        better quickly get back under that tin foil hat of yours.

    • by shmlco (594907)

      "Will this give us the 'one language to rule them all' that Java failed to bring..."

      More like the one language to lose them all. Java and Flash cross-platform development have shown that you tend up with a least-common-denominator application that fails to take full advantage of any given platform, Couple that with failing to fully match a specific platform's UI and UX conventions, and you have a nice little recipe for developing a losing application.

      You're also perpetually behind the curve, OS-wise. If App

      • by Giometrix (932993)
        I haven't looked into it in a while, but if I recall correctly, mono touch is not compatible with monodroid (though surely you can make some reusable libraries). So a mono touch app targets all of the iPhone features, while monodroid targets android features.
      • by exomondo (1725132)

        More like the one language to lose them all. Java and Flash cross-platform development have shown that you tend up with a least-common-denominator application that fails to take full advantage of any given platform, Couple that with failing to fully match a specific platform's UI and UX conventions, and you have a nice little recipe for developing a losing application.

        That's if you wrote the whole application in java. But writing a java backend with a platform-specific frontend is going to save you a hell of a lot of time porting code.

  • by Alworx (885008) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:06PM (#35738674) Homepage

    Finally I can hear good quality music with just the one earbud.

    No, wait...

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:07PM (#35738682) Journal

    Reuters Minas Tirith - Mordor Inc. has announced the release of Ring of Power Open Source Version, to be released to the Free Peoples of Middle Earth. Mordor VP of Marketing, the Mouth of Sauron, has announced that the purpose of this open source version of the Ring of Power is to demonstrate Mordor's goodwill to all people.

    "We're really hoping that all those Elves and Numenoreans and Halflings take our Open Source version of the Ring of Power and use it to do all kinds of nifty things." the Mouth of Sauron said. "There has been some animosity in the past between Mordor and the rest of Middle Earth, but we're pretty keen to the idea that this is the time to put it all behind us, so we're releasing, with this commitment from Sauron himself, open source Rings of Power with no future obligations to the Dark Lord, the Nazgul or anyone else in our organization."

    When asked about previous attempts to take control of the other competing powers in Middle Earth (such as the infamous "One Ring to Rule Them All One Ring to Bind Them" proprietary patent-encumbered master Ring), the Mouth of Sauron dismissed it out of hand. "That was just business. But this is the dawning of a new age, and Mordor commits to not trying to seize control of the minds of any wielders of any open source Rings of Power... honest!"

    (With files from Rivendell Archives)

    • Somebody likes his Tolkien... :)
    • by Dracos (107777)

      Aptly put, sir.

      So in two years when WP7 is still an also-ran in the mobile market, MS has another reason to trigger their patent bomb to defend .NET. Brilliant.

      • Wouldn't they have already done this with iPhone? Unity, which makes up a fair number of games on iPhone, uses Mono.
  • The iPhone developer licence forbids scripting engines or Just-In-Time (JIT) compilers, which .NET needs to run code.

    Someone had better let all of the Unity IPhone developers know that they cannot use Mono C# on the iphone as it is forbidden. Really guys all of those apps you have been selling for the last two years for the IPhone is just not possible.

    • Uhm, it does, but Mono uses AOT (Ahead of Time), which is different. Wikipedia is your friend.
    • Re:IPhone C# (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:15PM (#35738758)

      Wrong.

      MonoTouch ( which is the IOS .NET development suite ) uses the Mono Full AOT feature and precompiles all the code into a static binary ( including the base class libraries ) and links in runtime stubs for GC and the likes.

      Certain features of .NET are naturally not available ( runtime code generation, features relying thereupon ) and some c# features don't work ( virtual methods in generic classes for example )

      So you end up with a fully statically linked executable with no JIT included, fully compliant with IOS licensing terms.

      Unity3D uses the same approach ( and probably shares a bit of the codebase )

  • News that matters? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MaggieL (10193) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:08PM (#35738700)

    We already can program Android in Java (and Scala) and script it in Python, Lua, BeanShell, Perl, Tcl, JavaScript and Ruby. I hadn't noticed the multitudes crying out for Mono.

    • by jkauzlar (596349)

      +1 parent

      Will this give us the 'one language to rule them all' that Java failed to bring

      No, because Mono isn't a language. C# and F# are languages.

    • by the linux geek (799780) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:21PM (#35738818)
      Everything I've seen other than Java is, at best, half-baked on Android. Scala is the closest I've seen to full-featured.
      • by grubwort (1356089)
        Sounds like MonoTouch on the iPhone. All ticking along nicely until you hit an unexpected exception in one of the core Novell libraries. Typical open source project; push out a half baked solution and expect the "community" to fix it for you.
      • by MaggieL (10193)

        The others I mentioned are scripted using the JSR-223 interface; not something you'd use for anything really deep. Scala is just Java with the compiler replaced by the same guy who more-or-less wrote the current javac, but allowing himself to define a new language with a lot of the mistakes in the design of the Java language itself mitigated. It's totally OO and totally functional at the same time, yet can use existing Java libraries with an amazing level of transparency.

      • by wrook (134116)

        Not to be negative, especially since I just started writing an Android app, but even Java seems to be half baked. I really hope that once I get used to the quirks my productivity will improve, but nothing seems to work the way I expect it too. I'm not trying to troll here, it's just that there seems to be one way that works well and about 100 other ways that may or may not work. I spend a lot of my time guessing what the one magic working way is (especially since it often isn't my first choice). I had a

        • by ADRA (37398)

          Java works fine on Dalvik, but there are performance regressions that deeply separate Dalvik from Hotspot. Sun's long and hard work over the years has produced a very well performing system that Dalvik is quite a leap from atm. The fact that they recommend avoiding virtual methods in a language with the concept deeply seeded philosophy of abstraction is disconcerting and frankly worrying. I hope that the virtual machine gets to the point where that facet and the many other performance penalizing pieces beco

    • by caywen (942955) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @07:03PM (#35739112)

      I never saw multitudes cry out for C# for mobile games development, either, but Unity appears to be a very successful product. You don't need people crying out for a product to make development worthwhile.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:12PM (#35738728)

    .NET 2 was a competitor to Java. Since then I believe the API has gone downhill so much that it really hinders development. Who comes up with data structures that throw an exception because you asked it if something was inside and the answer was 'no'?

    Like all MS software, they will blunder on thinking they still drive the entire industry, completely ignoring EVERYTHING their customers tell them and fixing only security issues. Like Windows, .NET will one day be something we look back on while shaking our heads in wonder, with the same feeling you would get watching someone dial a rotary phone.

    • by luder (923306) *

      Who comes up with data structures that throw an exception because you asked it if something was inside and the answer was 'no'?

      I'm intrigued... What data structures are you talking about? I don't remember seeing that behavior.

    • I wish I had mod points. My guess is the microsofties here will mod you down for truth.

    • I'm curious what your example case is. What data structure? What are you trying to do with it?

      I'm primarily a system administrator, and in the past few years I have seen nothing from Microsoft which hasn't shown a drastic increase in the amount they're listening to their customers. They've been fixing several obviously broken products and providing a lot of tools which make my job easier. The departure of Gates has been one of the best things for the company. It's slow in some areas, yes, but Microsoft

  • "...or will the bad blood between the F/OSS groups and Microsoft make this a dead end?"

    >>Implying that F/OSS groups are the only ones or even the majority that makes apps for android.

    I hear that .Net framework is pretty good for building good games. So it will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

  • by DdJ (10790) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:12PM (#35738736) Homepage Journal

    It's really great that there's finally a tool to make life easier for all the developers building Windows Phone 7 apps in C# that want to move their code base to the Android platform!

    • And even better news that the Mono patent virus is now going to be directly infecting one of Google's flagships! Yay for Redmond and its evil little minion de Icaza.

    • It's great, but there aren't that many to begin with, so I hope this atleast breaks even. I like plurality in my programming life!
  • First, this is just flamebait.

    Second, the only people who want everything to be done in one language are those clueless zealots everyone finds an excuse not to hang out with after work.

    Third, even if one language completely dominated the niche category of handheld consumer devices, it would mean nothing outside that niche.

    Slow news day?

    • by hax4bux (209237)

      +1 insightful

      I dunno about being the worst article (stiff competition) but spot on about "people who want everything in one language"

      I have been teaching Android development for over a year, and the biggest wankers are the ones who come to argue rather than learn.

      Real engineers don't have a problem soaking up another platform.

      • Huh? how do the "arguers" have anything to do with "one language" ? (aside from a commonly used argument). Having a single language that can meet your development needs is a Good Thing (tm). Remember the K.I.S.S. principle? Sounds like you are indeed a teacher of "development" but not a teacher of "design", and good design [rarely taught or learned, especially not in software] aims to simplify where possible - which means "one language" is a good design goal (and it always indicates poor design in an API i
    • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @07:41PM (#35739432)
      Actually, it is *terrible* design to use more than one language if you don't have to. Sure, for small, short-lived projects you can mix and match tools, but for huge, long-lived projects you need to be able to replace people quickly (with large numbers of people then staff turnover is inevitable for a multitude of reasons). Having extra languages is a negative with respect to this. This is why the relative simplicity of Java is viewed favorably in the Enterprise and more complex and obscure alternatives (which may actually be better fits for the purpose) are avoided.

      With regard to your "find an excuse to not hang out with after work" comment. Actually, it are pseudo-academic language snobs who are avoided. The kind who love adding layer upon layer of complexity (including switching languages and tools all over the place), and take pride in their l337 skills for doing this. They can be great developers but are shitty *designers* (too bad they're usually so clueless at design they never even see or consider this aspect). Remember, great design is about *removing* stuff. As Einstein said, "As simple as possible, but no simpler" [note: this is actually misquote of what he actually said, but it is commonly enough used and conveys the same meaning in fewer words]. That means *fewer* languages, not more, should be preferred.

      • by MightyYar (622222)

        Actually, it is *terrible* design to use more than one language if you don't have to

        I think there are exceptions. Python with some C for the fast bits can be quite compelling.

        And I don't know if it counts, but mixing C and C derivatives like C++ or Objective C is pretty common.

        I think it depends on your requirements. Obviously it is ideal to KISS, but if writing most of the code in Python saves you months or even just weeks of coding time, then it is hard to say that a straight-C implementation is "better".

    • by Draek (916851)

      The "one language to rule them all" bit isn't about having everyone use the same language, but about having a language supported on every platform. Java, AFAIK, isn't supported on iOS which is why it's considered a "failure" in that respect, and obviously nobody outside Apple uses ObjC for anything serious so that one's dead as well.

  • Kinda pricey... (Score:5, Informative)

    by MaggieL (10193) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:16PM (#35738778)

    This just in: "Mono for Android includes the core Mono runtime, bindings for native Android APIs, a Visual Studio 2010 plug-in for developing and testing Android applications, and a software development kit (SDK). The enterprise edition costs $999 (£613) per developer per year, including maintenance and updates. A five-developer enterprise licence costs $3,999 per year, and a professional edition costs £399 per developer per year."

    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/novell-releases-mono-for-android-toolset-10022167/?tag=mncol;txt [zdnet.co.uk]

  • by prefec2 (875483) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:24PM (#35738852)

    First, it is mono. Beside any technical argument. There are a lot of people who do not like mono, because it is an incarnation of evil (alias MS). I am not saying that it is, but many people feel that way. So this is definitely one obstacle. Second, Android and iOS are different enough to be different on the low level aka programming language level, which will result either in compatibility libraries which are wrappers and resemble at some point internal DSLs. And they result in another abstraction layer which costs memory and CPU power. When you used an iPhone 3G/3GS you already find your phone to slow. So why torture yourself with slow software. And fourth, there are other cross platform approaches which use external DSLs which do not introduce another layer of abstraction at runtime, only on built time. For example: http://code.google.com/p/applause/ [google.com]

    • First, it is mono. Beside any technical argument. There are a lot of people who do not like mono, because it is an incarnation of evil (alias MS). I am not saying that it is, but many people feel that way.

      Yeah, but look at your alternatives. You can use Mono, aka .NET, aka Microsoft. Or you can use Java, aka Sun, aka Oracle, aka plaintiff in litigation against Google over Java in Android.

      Giant douche or turd sandwich?

    • You are confusing a language with a UI (or hardware) library. Sort of. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I'll leave it as that to not further confuse you.

      In actuality, .NET, mono, monotouch, and monodroid are a collection of base class libraries, interpreters (or compilers), with each diverging with their own separate UI/hardware libraries. Additionally, the later two (or three) are compiled, with no "additional abstraction at runtime".

  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:37PM (#35738922)
    For all those developers that really want to combine all the disadvantages of programming for Android with all the disadvantages of using a Microsoft-controlled API!
  • by steveha (103154) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:39PM (#35738932) Homepage

    As I understand it, here is the chief complaint that people have about Mono: Microsoft could have some sort of patents that could apply to Mono; and Microsoft could in the future use these patents to do something bad.

    I have never seen any specific examples given, it's just a general "there could be some patents" argument. In fact, I believe the theory is that these could be "submarine" patents, not known now but lurking invisibly.

    Here's a specific example. This is a long essay [techrights.org] about this very issue. What is the danger if we use Mono? "[C#] was developed inside Microsoft, so it's likely they have many patents to cover different aspects of its implementation." Got that? "it's likely" Microsoft has "many patents". Citation needed.

    This is the 21st Century, and patents are not only public, there are patent search engines. Where are the specific examples?

    The situation is even crazier due to the passage of time. Microsoft introduced .NET in the year 2000. It is now the year 2011. Patents in the USA today have a term of 20 years. Presumably these submarine patents were not filed the same year as .NET was introduced; that would be far too obvious... they were probably filed a year or two ahead of time. So presumably these patents have a maximum life of under 9 years, and probably under 7 years.

    In the past 11 or 12 years, nobody has noticed these deadly patents, lurking. But wait: these could be true "submarine" patents, where the patent was filed but not granted yet, and Microsoft is using sleazy tricks to extend the filing period and delay granting the patents. This implies that the patent must have been filed before 1995, when the US patent system was changed (patent term went from "17 years after patent granted" to "20 years after patent filed", specifically to fix the problem of submarine patents). Thus, a true "submarine" patent would have to have been kept going via sleazy tricks for over 16 years now, and nobody has noticed it yet.

    So, if I understand correctly, we shouldn't use Mono because it could be a trap. Microsoft could have patents nobody has noticed for a dozen years that will expire within the next nine years that could apply to Mono. Or else they could have pending patent applications that have been pending for over 16 years without anybody noticing; those would apply for 17 years after the patent grant finally occurs in the future.

    And if the above turns out to be true, and you wrote a program in C#, what would Microsoft's remedy be? Would you be forced to pay them huge sums of money? Would you be forced to give ownership of your source code to Microsoft? Not likely, and anybody who claims it is likely needs to provide legal precedents showing such a remedy in a similar case. No, the only realistic remedy would be that you would have to choose between buying some sort of licensed version of Mono (to comply with the patent licensing terms), or stop using Mono.

    And the obvious exit strategy is to rewrite your C# app in Java. That would be a pain, granted, but hardly the end of the world.

    And that is even assuming that Microsoft was successful in asserting these hidden patents. After offering C# up as a free standard, and not taking any action for a dozen years, to suddenly assert hidden patents would leave Microsoft wide open to the "unclean hands" [wikipedia.org] legal doctrine. It's hard for me to imagine Microsoft prevailing in this.

    And nobody has yet proposed a motive why Microsoft should do this. How does Microsoft gain by backstabbing the C# community? In the near term they could gain some patent licensing fees, but in the long term they would be alienating people they have been trying to woo. How likely is this, really?

    So, in conclusion: because of this nebulously scary potential situation with possible unknown Microsoft patents, Mono and C# are

    • by symbolset (646467) *
      Using any of their things, no matter how trivial or open, is just biting their hook. Once you're on the hook they'll let you swim around quite a while before they reel you in, in the hope you'll bring more friends. Just don't do it. You wouldn't drink from the outlet of a sewage treatment plant, would you? Clean water falls from the sky, and great toolchains from less revolting sources are available.
    • by makomk (752139)

      As I understand it, here is the chief complaint that people have about Mono: Microsoft could have some sort of patents that could apply to Mono; and Microsoft could in the future use these patents to do something bad.

      I have never seen any specific examples given, it's just a general "there could be some patents" argument. In fact, I believe the theory is that these could be "submarine" patents, not known now but lurking invisibly.

      That's mostly because no-one wants to go looking, not because they're hard to find. For example there's US patent 6951022 [patentstorm.us] which covers using .Net delegates to dispatch events that have two arguments, one identifying the event source and another that's a structure containing the event arguments. Seems oddly specific, but GTK.Net does exactly this, and it's likely that many other .Net and Mono-based apps also do so because they're following Microsoft's coding standards. That's enough to take out pretty much e

      • by makomk (752139)

        That should of course be Gtk# not GTK.Net. Bleh, it's getting late.

      • by steveha (103154)

        The limits of my C# knowledge stand revealed. I do not know very much about this stuff, at all.

        Are you saying that Mono is fundamentally broken, because this feature is essential to Mono? Would it be possible to rewrite Mono to not use this feature, if Microsoft ever started asserting this patent?

        And, while I am not a patent lawyer, isn't it generally true that the more specific the patent, the easier it is to work around the patent?

        Also, this patent expires in 2021, so it must have been filed in 2001, wh

    • by Kjella (173770)

      It's one issue but not the only one - and could be well explained by mono not being very popular, it doesn't matter how much time has passed if there's not enough in the trap to be worth springing it. Another issue is that almost everyone writes for Microsoft's CLR. No matter if it's spec ambiguities, bugs in Microsoft's implementation or bugs in Mono's implementation the most common answer you'll get if it works on their version and not mono will be "dunno, use Windows" as if mono is something akin to WINE

    • by zzatz (965857) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @09:32PM (#35740314)

      Microsoft could end the patent issue once and for all by granting a royalty-free license for any and all patents needed to implement a C# runtime. They have not done so. That suggests that they reserve the right to use those patents against any competitor who becomes a large enough threat, or any one else with deep pockets.

      IBM has more patents than anyone else, yet they give patent grants in situations like this. Many companies do. Sometimes growing the market by making standards more affordable is better than protecting your share of a smaller market. Microsoft's actions speak louder than their words, and their actions come down on the side of reserving the option of shutting down the use of C# in ways that Microsoft doesn't like. You think that it's silly to fear that Microsoft would do that, I think it's silly for Microsoft to fear that someone might someday use Microsoft's C# patents to harm Microsoft.

    • Honestly, in this case the patent problem is wholly beside the point. You could choose Mono and carry an extremely low risk of patent litigation (this kit is produced by Novell which has a good relationship with Microsoft including patent detente) or choose Java... which is currently the topic of ongoing patent litigation between Google and Oracle.

      Gee, which of these two is really less appealing?

  • And here we keep telling clueless users that "it's not that kind of virus."

  • Let's see, Windows Phone apps are written in C#, iPhone apps are written in Objective C, and Android Apps are written in Java... so obviously using Mono on all three is going to be a big win for cross platform programming!
  • Penicillin for Android next?

    To help with mono infections?

    (Yes, I know penicillin doesn't work on real world mono. It's a joke.)

    • Would have been funnier if you had said, "Acyclovir" (which does have action against the Herpes Simplex virus, aka "Mono") :)
  • I am a programmer and I program in C# sometimes. C# like Java, VB, etc. was established with the idea of high level quick programming. A programming language that allows anyone to program. The problem with it is, that, anyone programs in it. I won't go to say that you can't program hard core staff with it...just most of its programmers don't.

    Mono, is a framework and not a programming language. And it does incorporate the basic stuff of the .Net framework. Having that said it's not a bad framework and brin
    • by wasabii (693236)

      Actually, Mono runs all of the non-UI and non-WCF 4.0 code I have. Just fine. And it runs most of the WCF client side stuff just fine.

      That includes Linq, and almost everything everybody uses on a daily basis.

      It should be pointed out that Mono doesn't magically make the UI differences between iOS, Android and whatever go away. You still have to use native widgets per platform.

      So, you can make a core assembly, that you share between all three, and independent UI's on top of that. Sounds like a great situation

  • Dear Microsoft,

    If you were smart, you'd reinstate your Java to C# converter.

    Signed,

    Fed up Java dev...
  • anything novell is offering is better suited for use as an example of what *not* to use. sorry, but someone please kill mono with fire, and while your at it, drive a wooden stake through the lump under the blanket next to it - silverlight.
  • Death to curly braces and semicolons. We should just erase them from ASCII already. Disaster. Absolute worst way to organize language ever.

    What does Java have that Python doesn't in two weeks?

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...