There is no C# on Linux - or is there?
-
Yes, I know
dnxis a thing. But does anyone actually use it?
-
.NET on Linux is actually doable these days, thanks to Mono + Microsoft open-sourcing it...
-
The chances of it gaining traction are pretty slim though, thanks to the RMS/GPL zealots.
-
The chances of it gaining traction are pretty slim though, thanks to the RMS/GPL zealots.
Like how those guys have kept Java from being used there?
-
Their level of hatred for anything from MS makes their hatred for Java look like playschool kids having an argument.
-
Despite the New Microsoft being nothing like the Old Microsoft with 'embrace, extend, extinguish'.
-
But how many of those guys are making decisions about enterprise stuff? Because that's who's using java on linux, not RMS hipsters.
-
Despite the New Microsoft being nothing like the Old Microsoft with 'embrace, extend, extinguish'.
But how many of those guys are making decisions about enterprise stuff? Because that's who's using java on linux, not RMS hipsters.
Your mistake is thinking; followers of the Church of RMS don't think ;)
-
Google apps crawler worked on mono when I messed a bit with it.
But I didn't do much stuff on itMonodevelop is no visual studio for sure
-
The main reason I wouldn't use Mono for desktop apps on Linux these days: still seems to mostly use GTK (which is... ugh!) and/or some weird Win9x-looking thing.
For console applications, eh, fine I guess, never had the need for it though, most of the stuff I make is small scripts that I'm comfortable writing in another language without the overhead of the whole runtime being loaded.
-
What about web apps?
-
I wouldn't use Mono either, but that's more because it's barely got support for stuff beyond .NET 2.0, and there's so much good stuff in 3.5, 4.0, and later that I'd rather not do without. Plus 5.0 isn't that far away.
-
If it's not a pain to set up, why not? I only work on one web app that's big enough to really worry about the architecture behind it, and I sure as hell don't have the time nor the inclination to rewrite it completely right now. Next big project? Maybe.
-
-
It recently upgraded to 4.5 for me. Are they diverging the version numbers that much?
Also, MonoGame is a port of XNA isn't it? That required 4.0 IIRC, and I kinda doubt people are porting old XNA games to Mono that readily if they have to downgrade a bunch of code in the process.
-
It recently upgraded to 4.5 for me. Are they diverging the version numbers that much?
Depends what version numbers you're talking about.Also, MonoGame is a port of XNA isn't it? That required 4.0 IIRC, and I kinda doubt people are porting old XNA games to Mono that readily if they have to downgrade a bunch of code in the process.
If it requires 4.0, then they'll have ported the bits they need to; XNA doesn't use the whole .NET Framework.
-
@boomzilla, care to jeff this?
-
Nope.
-
Where to?
-
Depends what version numbers you're talking about.
onyx@dev1:~$ mono --version Mono JIT compiler version 3.2.8 (Debian 3.2.8+dfsg-10) Copyright (C) 2002-2014 Novell, Inc, Xamarin Inc and Contributors. www.mono-project.com TLS: __thread SIGSEGV: altstack Notifications: epoll Architecture: amd64 Disabled: none Misc: softdebug LLVM: supported, not enabled. GC: sgenThat's what I get on the work computer. Note that this is running Debian stable, seems that Mono wasn't updated in the repos for ages, and I don't want to mess with stuff here.
-
Huh... I thought Mono didn't progress beyond 2.0; guess it did.
-
Their team just explicitly say they have no plan to build WPF/WCF/WF related parts.
If you just want to write ordinary WinForm/Console/Web application, it's still good enough.
-
Ah, that explains my confusion
-
-
OK...
@RaceProUK said:Who needs Mono when you have
DNX.NET Core 5?
GitHub - dotnet/core: .NET news, announcements, release notes, and more!
.NET news, announcements, release notes, and more! - dotnet/core
-
I wouldn't use Mono either, but that's more because it's barely got support for stuff beyond .NET 2.0, and there's so much good stuff in 3.5, 4.0, and later that I'd rather not do without. Plus 5.0 isn't that far away.
The new .NET Core libraries are cross-platform from the ground up, with no dependency on the "legacy" .NET Framework. They're being pushed mostly for ASP .NET 5 (currently in Release Candidate), but you can write Console applications just fine with them. There's no webforms/wpf/etc for them, but hey. It's C# on Linux, and no Mono required either.
It's also gone a long way to developing C# without Visual Studio too. If you really want, you can do it in Atom or VIM or whatever these days, and still get Intellisense from Omnisharp. Or you can use their cross-platform "Visual Studio Code" (which is basically a C#-centric Atom clone) and it even does debugging!
-
*already knows about .NET Core, DNX, ASP.NET 5, and VS Code* ;)
-
It has been for years and years. Since like 2005.
I think RaceProlapseUK is full of shit on this one. She probably knows it, deep down, too.
-
The chances of it gaining traction are pretty slim though, thanks to the RMS/GPL zealots.
THEREFORE IT DOSE NOT EXIST I AM THE LOGIC ROBOT BEEP BEEP THIS HAS BEEN LOGIC!!
-
I think RaceProlapseUK is full of shit on this one. She probably knows it, deep down, too.
You'll get there eventually as you scroll through, but I did link to DNX and .NET Core 5
-
So you posted this thread... why?
So you could make everything think you were dumb as dirt then, only gradually, reveal maybe you do have three or four working brain cells up there?
Well it worked I guess.
-
-
@RaceProUK said:
The chances of it gaining traction are pretty slim though, thanks to the RMS/GPL zealots.
Like how those guys have kept Java from being used there?
Since this article was first published, Sun (now part of Oracle) has relicensed most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java. Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a trap.
Also, remember that the FSF is against JavaScript which hasn't stopped it from being used basically everywhere, including on the application server.
-
I wouldn't use Mono either, but that's more because it's barely got support for stuff beyond .NET 2.0, and there's so much good stuff in 3.5, 4.0, and later that I'd rather not do without.
Dude. Are you from, like, 1986? Because your conception of Mono certainly is. Protip: Mono is using the .NET source code now.
-
I think RaceProlapseUK is full of shit on this one. She probably knows it, deep down, too.
Indubitably.
-
Dude. Are you from, like, 1986?
1985 actually; you're confusing me with @accalia
And yes, I admit my knowledge of Mono was outdated; in fact, I did so above:
@RaceProUK said:Huh... I thought Mono didn't progress beyond 2.0; guess it did.
-
It was all for you babe
Hey can you help me out?
There't this whoosh badge and I'm trying to figure out if it had been fairly applied or not, maybe you could offer an opinion on whoosh badges...
-
There you go, Race(Pro)-baiting again.
-
That hissy-fit was the funniest thing that ever happened on this forum, I want it to happen again.
You should be encouraging my efforts.
-
Their level of hatred for anything from MS
Despite the New Microsoft
Not Invented Here
The extreme open-source fanaticism is definitely parallel to SJW.
-
Wow, you managed to @xaade a thread about Mono...
-
Is it that hard to understand?
-
I wouldn't use Mono either, but that's more because it's barely got support for stuff beyond .NET 2.0, and there's so much good stuff in 3.5, 4.0, and later that I'd rather not do without. Plus 5.0 isn't that far away.
Huh? That sounds like a load of
.http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/compatibility/It looks like it has support for everything up to 4.6 apart from MVC4/5, WPF/WWF/WCF and CodeContracts, which are in most cases partially implemented. Otherwise, it's ready to be used.Oh, wait, there's even this sentence on the page I linked to:The easiest way to describe what Mono currently supports is:Everything in .NET 4.5 except WPF, WWF, and with limited WCF and limited ASP.NET 4.5 async stack.It's outdated, though, 'cause they've managed to implement C# 6.0 (.NET 4.6).So, yeah, you know...EDIT
Huh... I thought Mono didn't progress beyond 2.0; guess it did.
OK, Hanzo'd greatly. Sorry.
-
@RaceProUK said:
It was all for you babe
Hey can you help me out?
There't this whoosh badge and I'm trying to figure out if it had been fairly applied or not, maybe you could offer an opinion on whoosh badges...
If you point me to where it is, I'll take a look ;)
-
Dude. Are you from, like, 1986? Because your conception of Mono certainly is.
The only mono in 1986 would be this oneThe Mono project was started in 2001
-
I really need to see how mono has progressed after all this time. Maybe once I build my new machine, I'll stick it on the old one. Any thread that mentions mono without mentioning how awesome OpenTK is is definitely missing something, though.
-
-
OpenTK
Is it a cross-platform GUI framework? Because I've been looking for one of those...
-
Um, well, um, technically it could be used as one? It's an OpenGL wrapper that is crossplatform and incredibly easy to use.
The only crossplatform UI I know is GTK#, which I didn't want to look at. So I just went XAML in the hopes that in a few years Microsoft will have some way to get their XAML UI across.
-
Qt is cross-platform as well, I believe
