MapReduce is an in fact a fairly high level programming abstraction. If you are programmer you only have to write two functions: map and reduce. From what I understand Dyrad is even higher level in that it can describe a graph of operations that might
take multiple maps and reduces otherwise. Basically it helps you write something more concise that might require a larger program with MapReduce. I think that's just the nature of Linq in action. Linq can represent a graph of operations in a single statement,
to so easy to do with standard code. I don't think this signifies some mathematical difference between the two at the low level (I didn't get any hint that Dyrad could do parallelize things that MapReduce can't).
But DyradLINQ might be the most awesome thing since slice bread, but right now the only significant difference to me about something like Hadoop or this DyradLINQ is I can not legally use DyradLINQ. I don't care if you told me DyradLINQ was worse the Hadoop,
the fact that it is designed for .NET means I would use it.
So you can sell it to me but quite frankly it's useless unless you license it better. Hadoop is fully open source and you can use it in commercial products. Why is DyradLINQ so restricted?
I rather have an Internet were people aren't forced to use specific operating systems in order to participate. I think that completely defeats the purpose of the Internet as an open medium accessible to all: once of the reasons the Internet was successful
and widely adopted in the first place (built on open standards like TCP/IP all the way to HTTP and HTML). I do feel that Silverlight takes away something from that.
I would be really happy if Microsoft decided to release an offical spec for Silverlight as well as a promise not to sue people who use or implement Silverlight, kind what they did with some parts of .NET.
As you can see the latest stable version of Moonlight is 1.0.1, which is roughly equivalent to the Silverlight 1 release. AFAIK the latest version of Sliverlight is version 3. I have seen very little content that actually works with Moonlight, it seems most
everyone is using at least Silverlight 2 (including Channel 9).
Although in my opinion the Mono team consist of some of the best .NET programmers around, it's very difficult to keep up with the huge developer teams at Microsoft. Mono's full time development team (which Moonlight is a subset of) is actually smaller then
the entire .NET Compact Framework team.
Of course this doesn't address the issue that Microsoft has a vested interest in ensuring that Silverlight only works on Windows, should Silverlight ever actually take off as a disruptive technology on the Internet. Adobe, who is not primarly a platform/OS
vendor has no such conflict of interest.
Maybe, but I am stating my reason for not liking WPF, which I think it interesting because it's not "tooling sucks" or whatever the last 5 posters were talking about. Maybe it's not a "popular" reason, but it might be 5 years from now, because Windows marketshare
is declining. IMO it's not a good idea to write software that can only run on Windows today. Software that is not tied to a platform gives your existing customer's choice, and expands your customer base at the same time.
And regarding Mono WinForms. It's better to be a second class citizen then not a citizen at all. Mono developers spend more time perfecting WinForms then GTK# anyway. With WinForms I can have a nice looking app on Windows, and a decent app on OS X
and Linux. I was mostly targeting Linux I'd use GTK#, but Windows is still the primary platform of business, so WinForms is a better choice.
My primary reason for not looking into WPF is it's too Microsoft-proprietary. If I use WinForms, I can write an application that runs on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. If I use WPF, I only have the option of supporting Windows. That is quite unappealing. I
don't want my business model to literarly depend on another competitor's or potential competitor's business model.