4 Jul
2008
4 Jul
'08
12:57 a.m.
At 10:38 AM -0700 7/3/08, Josh Dersch wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
We've used Mono at work in production for several years now. The
crazy thing being, I've been the one building new versions of Mono,
even though I've not been writing anything in C#. Having said that,
I've been working on learning C# the last couple weeks, and quite
honestly rather like what I see. I'm rapidly starting to consider C#
and .NET as the best reason for having a Windows box. I've installed
Mono on my G5, and the main problem I see with .NET, Mono, or
Portable.NET, is that none of them run on OpenVMS. Using a language
that doesn't support OpenVMS is a personal problem for me.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Jules Richardson
wrote:
That's the whole point of .NET. Proprietary lock-in is the only
reason Microsoft is in business today. Sleazy, but very effective.
In the case of
.NET, there's the whole Mono initiative
(http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) which is an open source .NET
runtime on top of your favorite unix variants. C# and the CLR are
openly specified (ECMA/ISO). There's no particular reason that
PERQemu couldn't be compiled under Mono, but I haven't tried it. Includes
all you need to get going. You'll need a Windows
machine with .NET Framework 2.0. (Yes, I hear the jeering from
the peanut gallery. Sorry I didn't write this for your OS. If
you want to help with a Mono port when I get this thing more
finished, let me know :))
:-)
Is it written in such a way that a port will be easy? (if it
*needs* .NET, maybe not! :-)