Disqus - Latest Comments for jamesmansion

Re: MonoDevelop 2.2 Beta 1: We go cross platform. - Miguel de Icaza

jamesmansion — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:38:52 -0000

That's handy - because I pulled from SVN yesterday and I'm not getting so far. I installed the current Qt SDK for Windows - seems to be 2009.03.1 - and the latest cmake 2.6.4. I used make from gnuwin32.

cmake gets an error in configuration (but seems to be ignored by reconfiguring) but the supplied mingw with that SDK can't handle the sources since parser.h fails to find 'hash_map' . This is mingw with gcc 3.4.5. I guess the problem is that Q_OS_WIN has been used to infer Microsoft compiler, when it should be using the compiler define. I changed that to _MSC_VER and the build continued to the examples, where it failed as expected in QtDBus.

Sounds like you're nearly there, anyway.

What combinations of compiler and SDK do you expect to work on Windows?

Re: MonoTouch 1.0 goes live. - Miguel de Icaza

jamesmansion — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:08:39 -0000

If you guys have a great binding generator for C# to C/C++, I assure you that there are plenty of us who would be really interested, for a variety of reasons. P/Invoke is a lot easier to get started with than JNI but it does require a lot of thought and development of a C API.

Re: MonoDevelop 2.2 Beta 1: We go cross platform. - Miguel de Icaza

jamesmansion — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:54:08 -0000

Arno, I would have thought that a text processing app that processes C++ sources and generates code would port quite well to Windows - especially if you are in a C++ environment where you can assume that Qt is available, and use it to hide some of the system differences.

What sort of issues remain?

Re: MonoDevelop 2.2 Beta 1: We go cross platform. - Miguel de Icaza

jamesmansion — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:45:52 -0000

That's ... bizarre. I was under the impression that by putting a rather thin layer over smoke, it would not need much action. Maybe revisiting the C# wrapper in favour of a port of the Java stuff or the new pyside generator is in order. I've only played with it with mono.

I think it still stands that its handy cross-platform, since mono does run on Windows. Not ideal but still a viable delivery framework for an ISV.

Re: Mono Survey Time! - Miguel de Icaza

jamesmansion — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:33:17 -0000

Well, I can't access the survey from work.

I'd just like to make the point that it seems likely that you will get skewed results if you ask people how much they will pay for commercial support on, say, SPARC Solaris unless you (not Blastwave, or anyone else) are first providing up-to-date binary builds that work out of the box - because that's probably a prerequisite to even evaluating Mono on the platform (at least, in the sort of organisation that might pay reasonable bucks).

As far as why people don't use mono - well I suspect that the sorts of businesses who would value an ability to reuse their C# code on Linux probably don't subscribe to the sorts of political extremism we often see. I'd think you would be as well to do this exercise by reaching out through your (Novell) corporate contacts for NetWare (while you still have some!) and enterprise OpenSUSE accounts, rather than attracting the usual evangelical crowds you'll get through this medium.

Re: MonoDevelop 2.2 Beta 1: We go cross platform. - Miguel de Icaza

jamesmansion — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:00:08 -0000

I'm really pleased you've done this - but I can't help thinking that given Qt and Qyoto are now LGPL, it might have been easiest to consider Qt as a platform, port to that, and let it take the strain of doing the cross-platform stuff. I do hope that Qyoto can be a first-class citizen for Mono - personally I could hardly care less about the specific KDE bindings, but Qt gives a nice UI on Windows and good portability, and the ability to slim mono and embed the interpreted into a C++ bootstrap means the combination is a great tool for writing cross-platform apps.