Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

So if Silverlight contains a portable .net core ...

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Which will run on the mac; this begs the obvious question, why isn't the whole thing being ported? (setting aside asp.net perhaps)

  • User profile image
    Massif

    I can think of two possible reasons off the top of my head:

    1 - MS don't want to be seen to be attacking mono
    2 - It's a lot more work to do a complete .NET runtime for Macs

    Just possibilities, but I don't like seeing questions unanswered, even if I'm only guessing.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    If I put on my silo-loving cap and ask... If MS port the CLR to the Mac, or even Linux, does MS benefit more by being able to sell more copies of VS to Mac programmers, or the Mac platform benefit more by being able to run .Net apps.

    On the other hand, "porting" has a non-zero cost. We all know that there are a lot of call-throughs in the CLR that rely heavily on the underlying OS. Look at the difficulties Mono is having (albeit a very small group of laborers).

    Maybe we should ask why isn't Apple help out more with the Mono effort since they really have more to gain than MS.

  • User profile image
    Custa1200

    I'd buy VS for Mac OS in a flash. The one thing that I do like about the Windows world is the development tools in the form of VS which I have to use every day and actually enjoy. Too bad the rest of the OS isn't as enjoyable.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    Custa1200 wrote:
    I'd buy VS for Mac OS in a flash. The one thing that I do like about the Windows world is the development tools in the form of VS which I have to use every day and actually enjoy. Too bad the rest of the OS isn't as enjoyable.
    I guess I meant a copy of VS for Windows. There just not enough of you Mac guys to warrant a port of VS to the Mac Smiley

  • User profile image
    Ion Todirel

    i think there are 2 reasons why MS is porting only CLR to Mac, one is marketing and other is because CLR is easier to port than Windows.Forms?

  • User profile image
    Jack Poison

    Minh wrote:
    If I put on my silo-loving cap and ask... If MS port the CLR to the Mac, or even Linux, does MS benefit more by being able to sell more copies of VS to Mac programmers, or the Mac platform benefit more by being able to run .Net apps.

    On the other hand, "porting" has a non-zero cost. We all know that there are a lot of call-throughs in the CLR that rely heavily on the underlying OS. Look at the difficulties Mono is having (albeit a very small group of laborers).

    Maybe we should ask why isn't Apple help out more with the Mono effort since they really have more to gain than MS.


    If Apple assists Mono (and then, indirectly, Microsoft) in expanding the role of .NET, then Apple will be acknowledging and embolding the enemy. In fact, just merely suggesting this kind of assistance is traitorous...

  • User profile image
    Lazycoder2

    blowdart wrote:
    Which will run on the mac; this begs the obvious question, why isn't the whole thing being ported? (setting aside asp.net perhaps)


    I'll put aside my fanboy rantings of "why would I want to contaminate my Mac with the .NET Framework" because I would LOVE to be able to design Cocoa applications using Interface Builder and write all of my controllers using proper C#, not that Mono stuff.

    But there are some technical limitations to porting the entire framework to OS X. Not the least of which is that a lot of the .NET Framework is a wrapper for Win32, which doesn't exist on any Mac platform (either PowerPC or Intel). As far as I know, the specific database clients use OLEDB to connect to the databases, OS X only has ODBC.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    Jack Poison wrote:
    
    In fact, just merely suggesting this kind of assistance is traitorous...
    As always, I'm just a neutral observer  Smiley
    I know Apple has their own silo to protect, but at 4% OS market share, I'd think they want to be a bit more open.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Lazycoder2 wrote:
    

    But there are some technical limitations to porting the entire framework to OS X. Not the least of which is that a lot of the .NET Framework is a wrapper for Win32, which doesn't exist on any Mac platform (either PowerPC or Intel). As far as I know, the specific database clients use OLEDB to connect to the databases, OS X only has ODBC.


    But major parts of it aren't, hence the ported core. And you could have the database objects step down to ODBC transparently for example.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    Lazycoder2 wrote:
    
    blowdart wrote: Which will run on the mac; this begs the obvious question, why isn't the whole thing being ported? (setting aside asp.net perhaps)


    I'll put aside my fanboy rantings of "why would I want to contaminate my Mac with the .NET Framework" because I would LOVE to be able to design Cocoa applications using Interface Builder and write all of my controllers using proper C#, not that Mono stuff.

    But there are some technical limitations to porting the entire framework to OS X. Not the least of which is that a lot of the .NET Framework is a wrapper for Win32, which doesn't exist on any Mac platform (either PowerPC or Intel). As far as I know, the specific database clients use OLEDB to connect to the databases, OS X only has ODBC.


    A huge portion of the BCL is standardized on NOT a Windows only concept.  Of what's left, there's a lot that's still highly portable, including the ADO.NET stuff you think is somehow tied to OLEDB (it's not... there's native drivers for nearly every DB on the market, including OS ones).

    There's really only a few small stacks and one very big stack that are tied to Windows (WinForms being the large stack).  We don't need, or even want, those to be ported, IMHO.  WPF should be an easy port, and should replace WinForms.

    MS could, and should, port a very viable desktop solution.  Give us the ability to not only do Silverlight, but click once deployed desktop applications.  As I've said on here before, that's the direction we're moving in, and MS can play nice here and thus become a dominant leader, or they can choose to live off the fat of the past for several more years but lose any potential for growth.  I'm hoping the choose to do things right here, because their development tools really are superior.

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    blowdart wrote:
    Which will run on the mac; this begs the obvious question, why isn't the whole thing being ported? (setting aside asp.net perhaps)


    Good question. It would be an interesting move, especially if they got support from Apple -- like a partnership. Apple worked to make Java a 1st class language on the Mac, they could do the same with DotNet ... if Microsoft would allow it. It would weaken the "fence" around Windows, so I don't think it's likely.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    Ion Todirel wrote:
    i think there are 2 reasons why MS is porting only CLR to Mac, one is marketing and other is because CLR is easier to port than Windows.Forms?


    Windows.Forms has mostly already been ported to Mono.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    Ion Todirel wrote:
    i think there are 2 reasons why MS is porting only CLR to Mac, one is marketing and other is because CLR is easier to port than Windows.Forms?


    ++

    Most of the BCL should be ported easily. ADO.NET, ASP.NET and WinForms would be more compelx... ADO.NET means that each db vendor needs to write a manage provider for their mac database. WinForms relies heavily on the Win32 API. But the complete WPF would be also quite some work: it heavily relies on DirectX.

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    Windows.Forms has mostly already been ported to Mono.


    They couldn't take the Mono code, because that would make the whole thing open source, wouldn't it?

  • User profile image
    DigitalDud

    Apple already has their own development platform that makes more sense for them.

  • User profile image
    Escamillo

    emet wrote:
    You guys really are oblivious. Why stop there? Why not port Win32 over to Mac OS X?

    Microsoft WANTS you to stay on their platform. If they start porting all their libraries over to other systems the whole reason for staying on Windows falls apart. 


    Microsoft actually did port Win32 to Mac OS in the 90's.  If you can, try to get a hold of the old Visual Studio (or whatever it was called; I think it was called Visual Dev) circa 1995, and look through the "Windows Layer for Macintosh" (WLM) documentation.  Or even look at the current Win32 header files, and you'll still see some #ifdef MAC portions that remain from those days.  Microsoft ported Win32 to Mac OS, and provided cross platform remote debugging (debugging on NT, while the target app ran on the Mac).  But I think only Microsoft themselves actually used it, and it didn't get good results - it led to the infamous Mac Word 6 (was slow and looked more like a Windows app than a Mac app).

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    emet wrote:
    You guys really are oblivious. Why stop there? Why not port Win32 over to Mac OS X?

    Microsoft WANTS you to stay on their platform. If they start porting all their libraries over to other systems the whole reason for staying on Windows falls apart. 


    Interesting point.

    One of the biggest reasons for staying on the Windows platform, is the Office Suite,  which already does run on the Mac platform. To manage this, then I imagine that large chunks of the hard stuff must've been ported already (they must've had a Visual Basic engine for example. just to run the macro scripts).

    No, what Microsoft wants to do, is leverage hard cash from Windows technology, whether you run Windows or not.  This is why they took to stop fighting Linux, and just take a cut from the Windows intellectual property it used (allegedly).

    MS already makes money from Office on the Mac, and they do that without flogging a Windows license. They will make more money with the Mac through virtualization.

    So I don't think a full blown .NET implementation is that far off the cards.


Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.