[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet

From: Adam Treat
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:11:07 -0800


I don't mean to imply that cscc is _only_ good for bootstrapping mono, and I 
know that you've put in a tremendous amount of work into pnet.  I am grateful 
that there are talented individuals like yourself that are willing to 
sacrifice your time for the good of the community.

As far as after cscc can compile mcs;  I will undoubtedly use both compilers. 
 cscc when speed is king, and mcs when embedded in other tools, such as an 
IDE.  I think there are places for both pnet and mono toolchains in the 
community.  If nothing else, they provide a valuable counter-example to 
eachother and some good old-fashioned competition.

About the 'mutually-beneficial' part;  Not sure how Mono can ever repay pnet 
when the time comes to compile mcs with cscc...  The toolchains, should reuse 
code when beneficial and re-implement when necessary or desirable.  I think 
DotGNU has the login-platform all to itself though.  IMHO,  the Mono project 
would gladly look for leadership on this from the DotGNU community.

Finally, I don't think the Mono developers view you or pnet as 'little more 
than as a bootstrapping tool to be picked clean for ideas'.  Pnet is an 
alternative implementation with many of the same goals, but also with 
different design ideals.  Frankly, I think more people would code for Pnet 
but for the fact that coding in c# is soooooo nice.  That is after all what 
we are working for here.  Just know that you have taken the harder road.  
Many of us recognize this and applaud your efforts.


On Saturday 16 March 2002 12:06 am, you wrote:
> Adam Treat wrote:
> > >At some point in the future, we must heal the rift
> > >between the projects and find some way to co-operate
> > >in a useful, mutually-beneficial, manner.  Sniping at
> > >each other makes it harder to reach that point.
> >
> > Personally, I would like to see cscc compile mcs.  How would that be for
> > 'healing the rift'.  Once this is done, Mono's compiler will be 'clean'
> > of all Microsoft cruft.  Any idea how far we are away from this?
> About as far as we are from compiling pnetlib.  i.e. Real
> Soon Now.  Once it compiles pnetlib, compiling mcs should
> drop out the bottom as a freebie.
> However, I have always had a problem with the attitude
> that pnet exists to bootstrap mono, and then mono doesn't
> need pnet any more after that.
> Whatever we do to heal the rift must be mutually beneficial.
> How is it beneficial for DotGNU to do a huge amount of
> work solely for the purpose of being thrown away afterwards?
> My position on co-operation has always been this: we
> must mutually pick something substantial that Mono will
> NOT do, and DotGNU will do that.  But while the Mono
> community views pnet as little more than as a bootstrapping
> tool to be picked clean for ideas, we have a problem.  That's
> disrespectful to all the hard work that I've put in.
> Make a realistic and respectful offer on co-operation,
> and we can begin to move forward from the current
> stalemate.
> Cheers,
> Rhys.
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]