5 ms·

I don't get the excitement. Nothing stopped Microsoft from releasing an open-source .NET implementation that works cross-platform, coupled with the toolset to b

I don't get the excitement. Nothing stopped Microsoft from releasing an open-source .NET implementation that works cross-platform, coupled with the toolset to build UIs on top of Android and iOS. It's actually one of their core competencies and if relative nobodies could pull off RoboVM, then Microsoft has no excuse other than being defensive about Windows and they had plenty of time to do it, ever since 2001. Mono and Xamarin are only possible because a bunch of folks weren't bounded by Microsoft's bottom line. At best this would be an acquihire. At worst this is a defensive acquisition. I hope it doesn't happen, because nothing good can come out of it.

lafar6502 13y ago
Totally agree - Mono adds no value to Microsoft's .Net platform and was created because .Net was Windows-only and proprietary.
- ygra 13y ago
  Xamarin has quite a few products based on Mono which they sell. A separate implementation of .NET and the BCL doesn't benefit Microsoft that much, but the other offerings Xamarin has might.
- beefydude 13y ago
  .NET is merely one of the implementations of the ISO/IEC 23271:2006 standard (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42927 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42927) Mono is also an implementation of that standard, a cross platform one, and open sourc-ish (they do some dual licensing stuff)
  - frowaway001 13y ago
    And your point is ...?
statictype 13y ago
Nothing stopped Microsoft from releasing an open-source .NET implementation that works cross-platform Nothing except that it wasn't a priority for them. Maybe it is now. I'm pretty sure releasing a version of the .NET framework and runtime that works across platform is a little more difficult than changing the target architecture on their compiler settings (does their compiler even support different architectures?) I'm not saying it isn't possible - just that it wasn't a priority for them. This doesn't mean they don't want or support a cross-platform .NET ecosystem. (If I recall something Miguel De Icaza wrote some time ago, the internal teams in Microsoft have been supportive of Mono.) Do agree though that if this were an aquihire or defensive move, then it sucks for the rest of us.
- chc 13y ago
  It's also worth remembering the rumors that Microsoft will offer a free version of Windows and an iPad Office. It seems like Nadella is looking to bring a new focus to Microsoft besides "Windows everything," so they may indeed have a newfound interest in cross-platform support.
- politician 13y ago
  Microsoft released a "Shared-Source" .NET implementation for FreeBSD in 2002. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx
- josephcooney 13y ago
  The C# compiler targets the CLR (a virtual machine), so doesn't need to be re-targeted. They had/have commercial versions of the CLR for ARM (.NET Compact Framework), x86, x64 and Itanium. They probably also have one for PowerPC for running XNA games on xbox 360. Porting the BCL to a target platform, and building a static linker is probably more of a task though.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
This is a bizarre statement. MS could have developed Xamarin on their own, but they didn't. Today Xamarin exists and is a very powerful tool with a large userbase. If MS now decides they want to enter that space, especially since it is becoming more and more worthwhile due to mobile platforms, then it makes more sense to buy Xamarin than to work in parallel on their own. It also makes sense not to fragment the market for such products.
dragonwriter 13y ago
I wouldn't be so sure that "nothing good can come of it". While the potential good would be a major change of direction for Microsoft, its a change of direction that I think there have been some minor hints of (nothing particularly significant yet) since the recent leadership change. And, yes, nothing stopped MS from working on an cross-platform .NET implementation before except strategic direction, but if that strategic direction were to change they'd be better off having the leading cross-platform VM and its developers in house.
talklittle 13y ago
Speaking of RoboVM, sounds like it is making very good progress [1]. And can't beat its price of free. LibGDX is using RoboVM these days instead of Xamarin, due to the price. Also anecdotally they found RoboVM runs even faster than Xamarin [2], despite being a young project. [1]: http://blog.robovm.org/2014/03/robovm-0010-is-here.html http://blog.robovm.org/2014/03/robovm-0010-is-here.html [2]: http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3161 http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3161

lafar6502 13y ago

Totally agree - Mono adds no value to Microsoft's .Net platform and was created because .Net was Windows-only and proprietary.

ygra 13y ago
Xamarin has quite a few products based on Mono which they sell. A separate implementation of .NET and the BCL doesn't benefit Microsoft that much, but the other offerings Xamarin has might.
beefydude 13y ago
.NET is merely one of the implementations of the ISO/IEC 23271:2006 standard (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42927 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42927) Mono is also an implementation of that standard, a cross platform one, and open sourc-ish (they do some dual licensing stuff)
- frowaway001 13y ago
  And your point is ...?

statictype 13y ago

Nothing stopped Microsoft from releasing an open-source .NET implementation that works cross-platform Nothing except that it wasn't a priority for them. Maybe it is now. I'm pretty sure releasing a version of the .NET framework and runtime that works across platform is a little more difficult than changing the target architecture on their compiler settings (does their compiler even support different architectures?) I'm not saying it isn't possible - just that it wasn't a priority for them. This doesn't mean they don't want or support a cross-platform .NET ecosystem. (If I recall something Miguel De Icaza wrote some time ago, the internal teams in Microsoft have been supportive of Mono.) Do agree though that if this were an aquihire or defensive move, then it sucks for the rest of us.

chc 13y ago
It's also worth remembering the rumors that Microsoft will offer a free version of Windows and an iPad Office. It seems like Nadella is looking to bring a new focus to Microsoft besides "Windows everything," so they may indeed have a newfound interest in cross-platform support.
politician 13y ago
Microsoft released a "Shared-Source" .NET implementation for FreeBSD in 2002. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx
josephcooney 13y ago
The C# compiler targets the CLR (a virtual machine), so doesn't need to be re-targeted. They had/have commercial versions of the CLR for ARM (.NET Compact Framework), x86, x64 and Itanium. They probably also have one for PowerPC for running XNA games on xbox 360. Porting the BCL to a target platform, and building a static linker is probably more of a task though.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

This is a bizarre statement. MS could have developed Xamarin on their own, but they didn't. Today Xamarin exists and is a very powerful tool with a large userbase. If MS now decides they want to enter that space, especially since it is becoming more and more worthwhile due to mobile platforms, then it makes more sense to buy Xamarin than to work in parallel on their own. It also makes sense not to fragment the market for such products.

dragonwriter 13y ago

I wouldn't be so sure that "nothing good can come of it". While the potential good would be a major change of direction for Microsoft, its a change of direction that I think there have been some minor hints of (nothing particularly significant yet) since the recent leadership change. And, yes, nothing stopped MS from working on an cross-platform .NET implementation before except strategic direction, but if that strategic direction were to change they'd be better off having the leading cross-platform VM and its developers in house.

talklittle 13y ago

Speaking of RoboVM, sounds like it is making very good progress [1]. And can't beat its price of free. LibGDX is using RoboVM these days instead of Xamarin, due to the price. Also anecdotally they found RoboVM runs even faster than Xamarin [2], despite being a young project. [1]: http://blog.robovm.org/2014/03/robovm-0010-is-here.html http://blog.robovm.org/2014/03/robovm-0010-is-here.html [2]: http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3161 http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3161