| |||||||||||||
The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOMEThe .NET API patent, mono, and GNOMEPosted Jan 19, 2006 20:31 UTC (Thu) by mitchskin (subscriber, #32405)In reply to: The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME by smitty_one_each Parent article: The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME
Okay, yes, this one was subjective. I figured that the language/VM controversy that GNOME went through in spring 2004 was fueled by people's desire for something nicer. I mean, part of the reason that Miguel was so into Mono was that writing Evolution in C was painful. And that out-of-process Bonobo components didn't perform as well as he had hoped. It's not just the language, it's also garbage collection and the type/component system that I think was part of the draw.
At the library level, C is a good choice in a lot of contexts, but when you start writing large applications like Evolution that I think people really start to want something different. Maybe "core" was the wrong word; I thought people used it to include things like Evolution, which is how I meant it.
(Log in to post comments)
The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME Posted Jan 19, 2006 23:25 UTC (Thu) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link] Is it any surprise that evolution is so buggy or difficult to write, when the authors idea of a fix is to blame the tools rather than the design. "Fixing C" is just introducing more problems, i.e. bloat, patent issues, dividing the community, etc, etc. And all for what, because they didn't want to change evolution's design.
The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME Posted Jan 21, 2006 15:32 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] You're saying they wrote Mono because they didn't want to refactor Evolution??
hoooookay, if that's what you want to believe...
|
|||||||||||||