Peter Gordon wrote: > Daniel Kasak wrote: > >>> Please consider embracing C# >>> >> I don't think so. The minute people start rewriting bits of gnome in C# >> is the minute I jump ship. >> > So you'd stick with C, even if higher-level languages were used to write the GUI portions of > applications (such as Python with PyGTK or C#/Mono with GTK#)? Even when those higher-level > languages make the applications easier to maintain and develop cool new features for? No. I already noted in my 1st response that I don't have a problem with people writing GUIs in whatever language they want - I'm a Gtk2-Perl progammer myself. But the libraries should be in C. However, the original question seemed to be leading towards "Why doesn't everyone drop what they're doing and port their stuff to C#". I think my response to that was clear and completely defensible. And yes, if the gtk and / or gnome libraries were ported to C#, I would jump ship. I'm already watching Enlightenment's EWL / ETK with great interest. > For the > record, GNOME already includes a few major applications written in C#: notably Tomboy [1], F-Spot > [2], and Beagle [3]. > Sure. Though I would use *stable* apps as example if I wanted to win people over :) > I think people are more than aware of the > >> legal minefield Gnome would be wading into by embracing a Microsoft >> technology such as C#. >> > C# is not a Microsoft technology. Sure, they were one of the initiators of it, but the language > itself is an accepted standard (ECMA-334 [4]) > > [1] http://live.gnome.org/Tomboy > [2] http://f-spot.org/Main_Page > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_(software) > [4] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ecma-st/ECMA-334.pdf > (This PDF is pretty big: nearly 2.5 MiB. Evince handles it pretty well, though. ^_^) > I'm still unconvinced of the threat of legal troubles - particularly with the laws surrounding encryption technology. What you and I might consider to be legal - even if it turns out to actually be legal - does not prevent Microsoft threatening to take legal action, or indeed initiating legal action. The legal outcome of that action may very well not be their goal; they are more interested in the effect it has on maintaining their monopoly. Take SCO, for example ( and read the Slashdot article posted today on the links between Microsoft, Baystar and SCO ). This already looks to be a clear legal victory, but the effect it's had on Linux adoption and Microsoft's bottom line isn't so clear. Also, being an 'accepted standard' isn't going to be much help even if there is no legal challenge. Microsoft are free to extend the language to their heart's content. Their market penetration means that it doesn't make any difference whether the language is an 'accepted standard' or indeed whether Microsoft's implementation matches that standard. The reality is that Microsoft can and will use this penetration to sideline the 'competition'. It will be up to the Mono team to play catch-up. People who discount this argument should subscribe to the Samba mailing list. There is example after example of people posting 'after applying Service Pack xxx I can no longer connect from Samba-xxx'. C# is more complicated than SMB networking. I see a major problem in playing catch-up. I also see no point in every trying. Considering the wealth of other scripting languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby, etc ( which all work on Windows, by the way ), I really fail to see why Linux users are pushing C#. Perhaps I can see why some C# programmers would want to create Mono so they can run their legacy apps under Linux. But as for everyone else, the mind boggles. -- Daniel Kasak IT Developer NUS Consulting Group Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060 T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989 email: dkasak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
