@tomjoad

Slow compared with native apps, dependency of the virtual machine (as someone said, some apps use things that are only on one VM, and this occour too with .NET and his VM), I prefer native code in C/C++

Quote:

Not necessarily - JIT are improving as well. Actually, a JIT could optimise code for the processor in the user's computer. If you're compiling natively, you'd have to build several version for several processors to achieve the same.

Quote:

Not a problem with VMs per se. I'm actually not quite sure if you mix up VM and APIs and completeness/compatibility of their implementation here. The VM itself should not be the problem. So I think the fault is not the principle of VMs.

Quote:

So do I - but I use to code it my own VM on top of which I can implement my stuff so I'm platform independent

OT: tonjoad, what about ScummVM for MorphOS? Do you will start coding in the ScummVM CVS anytime?


And yes, an API problem, due that windows has some own things that are used for the majority of apps, and microsoft has the estrategy on make wider the standard, and later the new apps will run only on the .NET microsoft implementation due to new things on it. And then all other implementations will be fucked.


[ Edited by timofonic on 2004/8/29 20:56 ]

Quote:

I agree, I actually NEED something like Outlook (not outlook express) for MorphOS to use it on a daily basis. In fact if I learn to code, maybe I'll write something like that.


Quote:

isn't .NET one big virus/trojan gateway?

C# is a microsoft product, so why bother even coding for MorphOS if there's a better operating system like Windows to code for that has a huge installed base, great dev tools and lots of paying customers?

@timofonic

So when are you going to start porting these things?

Quote:

Well that's correct, but that is just no explanation why **VMs** in general must suck (I was separating VM from the libraries implemented on top of it). If Mono would get ported, it wouldn't actually make remote sense to even *try* to make it compatible with the Microsoft APIs but rather build some for MorphOS - MUI# if you will (like Cocoa# or whatever they call it). So folks who are used to Java could program MorphOS in C# if they prefer this to C++. Something about choice. Personally I don't give a damn about C#, I have a strong interest in classless OO languages.

See ... I'm not denying that .NET crap people write for Windoze will never run on anything else than Windoze, despite "platform independence".

It seems stupid program a bytecode thing using native stuff of MorphOS, then why not do it in native code? Maybe better a C# compiler? And yes, accept .NET is equal to make Microsoft stronger. VMs are crap because are slower, trance is good because is heavily optimized and very well developed, so it gives vwery god results. But native stuff is faster than 68k emulated stuff...

Quote:

Isn't Microsoft one big virus?

C# is also a standard and free. You're not tied to .NET or Mono. You can compile directly to native (like in DotGNU).

Why bother coding for MorphOS? You tell me, mister amiga user.

Ain't coding and making stuff supposed to be fun?

@Ronald

This is a MorphOS webpage with a MorphOS forum, so if you not interested on MorphOS, use other webpages like PPC Zone...

Mister Amiga user? What do you mean? Please stop flaming, this isn't ANN.lu...

@timofonic
You should read slower and try to understand other people's posts before getting all worked up.

** taps the applies to topic sign **

i'm all for discussing languages and their benefits, but if anyone wishes to continue, please start another topic <3

Quote:

indeed.

Quote:


I'll have to see this to believe it.

Quote:

formerly known as an amiga user, wouldn't want to be associated anything amigaTM now.

Less work = more fun!

Sorry, Mr. Moderator, a last one then I'll shut up :)

Quote:

Look: Here are the specifications for the CLI and C#. There is even some code if I see it correctly.

And here is an interview (interestingly on the Microsoft site) with the Mono lead developer. It's quite a good read, even if just to see some folks are more open to ideas from anywhere (even the dark side).

Quote: "We are doing this for selfish reasons: we want a better way of developing Linux and Unix applications ourselves and we see the CLI as such a thing."

And for the last time: the runtime, the C# language and the class library can be seen three separate things. One does not really have to be tied to the others.

Ok, I'm done now :)

NAME: Direct Connect Text Client

DESCRIPTION: Direct Connect clone

OFFICIAL SITE: http://ac2i.homelinux.com/dctc/


NAME: MySQL

DESCRIPTION: Database.

OFFICIAL SITE: http://www.mysql.com

NAME: Directory Opus4

DESCRIPTION: A very flexible file manager for Amiga computers.

OFFICIAL SITE: http://home.c2i.net/P_M_Iversen/DOpus/index.html

NAME: netatalk

DESCRIPTION: Software allowing to use AppleTalk protocol to connect to Apple Macintosh computers.

OFFICIAL SITE: netatalk.sourceforge.net


A little announce: perl v5.6.1 is finished. I need only to package it.