On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:00:29 +0000
7 <web_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Micoshaft is reliant on using you to propagate it - and are using
> asstroturfers to attack anyone on the internet that critise mono or
> ask foro its removal.
Post a realistic, logical, and well-thought out argument on why Mono
should be removed, using fact and not personal opinion or religion as a
basis for the argument, and it might _actually_ be considered.
A few facts for you that you seem to have missed:
* Mono is Free Software. The C# compiler is MIT licensed, the
class library is LGPL, and the SDK is dual-licensed under the
MIT license and the GNU GPL.[1]
* Mono runs on far more than just x86 or x86-64 on Windows.[2]
* The basis for Mono is an open, published ECMA and ISO standard
which can be used to clean-room a brand new implementation.[3]
(Java, OTOH, has a de facto standard protected by Sun; the only
standard is the reference implementation. There is a language
specification document, as well, but this is the language, not
the JVM.)
Code written in C# and compiled to run in the CLR can run as fast as
code written in C and compiled to run on the native system. Most of
the time, it'd appear it gets pretty close,[4] though I will be
evaluating this more in the future and adding Java into my comparisons
to make the comparisons more useful. It just requires time that I
don't have at the moment. Perhaps I can even do some benchmarks with
the GNU implementation of .NET, too, for completeness.
--- Mike
[1] http://www.mono-project.com/Release_Notes_Mono_2.0#License
[2] http://www.mono-project.com/Supported_Platforms
[3] http://www.mono-project.com/ECMA
[4] http://www.trausch.us/2008/10/09/sometimes-learning-happens-strangely/
--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/
|
|
