Nokia to use Window mobile 7

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:15:31PM -0500, ted leslie wrote:
> 3 is working, mono versions don't track MS exactly, mono has stuff in
> say 3 that MS is only announcing in 5.
> 4 is in a few months, its about 60%-70% (according to a blog in late dec).
> MS SilverLight isn't as fast a moving target now, and not so many new
> features, as has pretty much kitchen sink now,
> only draw back is no covenant protect announced yet for SL5, but 3-4
> does everything i need now.
> but this is actually talking SL specific, so really more comparable to
> java, flash competition,
> I don't know if i would ever use EB4 for WPF specific apps, as not
> platform compat.
> but mono is going with out-of-brower ML as a recommendation to some
> one who would consider WPF particular to MS.
> 
> Silverlight works on Linux just fine to 2, 3 is basically there, and 4
> is close. It doesn't fit for all project (not yet), but good for most.
> Not sure what would be better, MS makes sure C# is feature equal (and
> some  extra ) to Java, C and C++ are long dead as far as new features
> and usability, plus C# has almost all C ability in it anyways
> (pointers and such), and will become a faster run time as per C
> limitations of not having
> JIT  compiler specifics to the CPU instruction sets basically make
> C/C++ useless going forward, i.e. my compiled C/C++ program
> isn't going to make use of SSE X instruction that I don't compile to
> now, because maybe they doen't even exist yet because they
> are in the intel  cpu release 6 month from now, and I am not going to
> keep compiling my app (especially commercial) to track new
> CPU instruction sets, rather get in this century, compile once, and
> have it speed up as the CPU get better, and get it all for free, as
> well
> not have different binaries for different platforms, and naturally not
> cater to all of them, as its to messy (time consuming).

Well the one place I have needed silverlight (moonlight) was for
something that drew a gant chart.  It didn't work and crashed the browser.
Demo pages that do silverlight 1 and 2 stuff work, nothing higher has
ever worked when I tried, and always crashed instead.

> Rather just compile once, and know it will/could outperform C on arm,
> intel, amd, <insert processor here>, and I don't have to futz with it.
> Having said that, of course I will have to recompile to say make use
> of a new PhysX feature, but that would be same for any platform,
> but if amd puts out a cpu with 64 register (of a certain type for
> example, (they have 32 or 16 now) I know i will get the benefit if my
> app. is deployed on it (provided mono/.net runtime is installed that
> supports said feature.)
> 
> Having said all this, the mono community has lagged far behind,
> especially years ago, but they are much closer now to tracking MS on
> .net/SL.
> Intel also is building a .net runtime environment, not sure their progress.

I still consider silverlight hopeless.  Not supporting machines without
SSE is moronic.  There were lots of machines with Ahtlon CPUs (pre Athlon
XP) running Windows XP in active use when they released silverlight.
Worse yet they couldn't be bothered to make it give a useful error message
or put in the system requirements that it needed SSE.  Flash doesn't
have such nonsense (and I hate flash too).

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists