I spend most of my professional life working with C#. Under Windows, I use a combination of Visual Studio and Sharp Develop. On MacOS, I use Cocoa# for Xcode and on Linux I use MonoDevelop.

Now, I know a lot of people don't like .NET (and by extension the C# language), as it has its roots in the world of Microsoft, but honestly, I'm really starting to love it for "small-ish" and "high level" projects (for anything "mid-level", I'm more likely to use C++, and "low-level" I'll use C (I'm WAY out of practice with assembly unfortunately)). The thing I'm loving the most is portability. I write my app once, and either with minor tweaks, or sometimes nothing at all, I can run it on Windows, MacOS and Linux. While that's also (theoretically) true for Java, I've just never been a fan of Java for the fact that it never "feels" native, whereas something I write in C# CAN do so, even though in reality it isn't.

That of course got me thinking... how nice would it be if all of these .NET apps would also run on AmigaOS? And so, I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in working with me to port Mono to AmigaOS. Right now, I don't have an OS4 system (I sold my AmigaOne when I moved country - and yes, I'm regretting it), so I'll do it under OS3.9 on UAE.

Step 1 would be to get everything from .NET 2.0 EXCEPT System.Windows.Forms ported over. Then, work on System.Windows.Forms; add a new native GUI (as was done with GTK# and Cocoa# (e.g. "Reaction#" or "MUI#", or maybe both to keep everyone happy); and then update to newer versions of .NET support.

For System.Windows.Forms, initially, I'd probably do something as is done in Mono, where you end up with some very ugly apps ("faking" the Windows GUI, and using X11 to do it) that are nevertheless functional. After that, I'd actually want to go beyond what's there in Mono and actually try to "translate" System.Windows.Forms in to something native if it's possible at all (giving the user the option to choose in cases where it may break things, since obviously Windows and AmigaOS GUI systems have some different "fundamental concepts" in there).

Obviously, I wouldn't do it all from scratch - It'd more or less be a port of the Mono project, however by the very nature of the kind of work, there's quite a lot of native stuff to be done, which won't be directly portable.

I'll start the project myself, but I do NOT think I'll be able to do it all alone, as it's a pretty big effort. The rewards of doing so could be very good though!

Anyone interested in the project, reply here, send me a private message, or email me if you know my email address. If you're not interested in actually doing any work on it, but have some thoughts, hints, ideas, etc, then that would also be highly appreciated.

@yttriumox

Interesting project, unfortunately I wouldn't have the time nor the skills to help you, I hope that you'll find some help eventually. Some question about .NET/Mono:

- how compatible/complete is Mono compared to .NET?

- what type, and how many applications/games are available for .NET?

- is XNA related to .NET? I ask this as it seems that there are some homebrew games written with it.

Varthall

_________________
AmigaOne XE - AmigaOS 4.1 - Freescale 7457 1GHz - 1GB ram

@Varthall

The XNA Framework is based on .NET Compact Framework.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@yttriumox

Emm Ami.NET... mmm

Quote:

Now, I know a lot of people don't like .NET (and by extension the C# language), as it has its roots in the world of Microsoft, but honestly, I'm really starting to love it for "small-ish" and "high level" projects (for anything "mid-level", I'm more likely to use C++, and "low-level" I'll use C (I'm WAY out of practice with assembly unfortunately)).

I'm in the same boat as you. But, I'm currently playing with NV CUDA (using standard C language)...

My AOS3.x knowledgebase is rusty atm. I need to rebuild my AOS3.x dev setup. I'm not sure on the status of GCC on AmigaOS 3.9.

Last edited by Hammer on 04-Aug-2008 at 10:38 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@yttriumox

IIRC Novell and Microsoft did a patent cross-promise not to sue each others paying customers over patent violation in Microsoft software, Linux and other Novell open source software distribution like Mono. That promise expires in a couple of years (it was a five-year deal). Those who are not Novell paying customers are left wondering if the sky will fall in on them if they use the licence under which Mono is released. I cannot imagine that Microsoft would go after anyone using Mono, but a port of Mono might be considered high enough profile for trouble.

I can't be bothered to fret over Microsoft and their patent threats so I just ignore Mono and .NET. Not that I am likely to achieve much by not ignoring them, you understand, so it's an easier choice for me.

Regards
Roy Leith

@yttriumox

Why mono ?

There is also

http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

And microsoft rotor (somekind of unix port)

http://www.codeguru.com/Csharp/.NET/net_general/rotor/article.php/c4659

Why not join forces with Syllable/Haiku/?? programmers and build gui parts using for example fltk (there is port for AmigaOS4)...

@yttriumox

Someone else started porting Mono a while back... quite a long while back. No idea how far they got. I can't find anything on the first page of google, but it might be worth a search through the archives?

_________________

@yttriumox

I hate to be pessimistic, but I seriously doubt that Mono will ever maintain 100% compatibility with Microsoft's .NET framework; so what is the point to waste any time with Mono (on the Amiga platform)??

If one was to waste time with Mono on the Amiga platform and wanted to handle GUI related stuff; why not use Feelin, which defines GUI objects in XML and would be a good avenue...

http://www.feelin.fr/

Last edited by AmigaMac on 04-Aug-2008 at 05:29 PM.

_________________

Hi all,
First up, thanks everyone for your comments.

@Varthall
- how compatible/complete is Mono compared to .NET?
Very VERY good. It's currently got all of .NET 2.0 minus a very small amount of the REALLY obscure stuff that you're very unlikely to find/use in the majority of stuff you write. As mentioned, I use it as a part of my job, and we rely on the fact that I can "port" an application (i.e. write a new GUI) in a matter of hours. I've yet to write any back-end stuff that doesn't "just work" under Mono as well as .NET.
To take an example of a bigger, more complex app than the likes of "hello world", take a look at "Paint.NET" ( http://www.getpaint.net ) and then read how easy it was to get it working under Mono at http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/May-19.html (note the date - two years ago! Things have improved even more since then.)
All of the apps I write myself are always written to work flawlessly under both Mono and .NET on Windows - this includes the relatively large, complex apps. (if you live in Europe, and use a current Konica Minolta bizhub MFP (copier/scanner/printer/thing), I can give you some apps to play with!)

- what type, and how many applications/games are available for .NET?
Very hard to say. Definitely in the thousands or tens of thousands. Maybe even hundreds of thousands, but probably not millions. More apps than games in general, but that might change in the future as Microsoft concentrate more on making .NET the dominant environment in Windows.

- is XNA related to .NET? I ask this as it seems that there are some homebrew games written with it.
As mentioned by Hammer, yes - it's based on the .NET Compact Framework. In general, an XNA app/game should be compilable and runnable under mono with little to no tweaking (no tweaking is actually unlikely due to the target devices, but it's still possible)


@royleith
Actually, I doubt Microsoft would dare do anything against Mono now. It's too big and strong as well as being something they themselves are probably pretty interested in (Microsoft have a LOT more Linux stuff going on inside their building than they generally "admit"). Also, Mono is LGPL/MIT X11 licensed, so they'd have a hard time in court if they decided they wanted to try to pull the rug (they agreed for their contributions to it to be opened under those terms, so the cat's out of the bag now). As far as patents go, Microsoft may hold the patents to some of the technologies in it, but the license says I can use it, so I can - simple as that.


@arsipaani
dotgnu is too far behind, and rotor isn't open source (it's "Microsoft Shared Source")
Regarding Syllable/Haiku - it's kind of a "hobby OS" right now (even more so than our beloved AmigaOS). Once I actually start looking at implementing GUI stuff, I can certainly look in that direction to see if there's anything interesting, but that won't be for a little while - getting the actual base running first is what counts!


@gnarly
I can't find anything about anyone else working on it... I'd love it if you (or anyone!) could find out who it was and let me know. Even if they only got 1% of the way through the job, that's still 1% that I won't have to do to finish it!


@AmigaMac
I think perhaps you misunderstand the idea here. Mono (.NET) is a complete runtime engine for apps - not just a GUI! It's already pretty close to 100% compatible with Microsoft, and while it (by its very nature) will always be a step behind what MS are doing, it IS good enough for commercial development efforts (e.g. My "day job"), and there are MANY developers writing for it at any time (again, My "day job").
Feelin looks like quite a nice GUI, and once I get to doing the GUI part of it, I think it might be quite easy to implement Feelin as one of the GUI options (in addition to System.Windows.Forms, System.MUI, System.Reaction and whatever else people need!)

@yttriumox

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm not a programmer, so I may very well come out with a right pile of **** here, but would it make it any easier to port it to Edgar Schwan's Amiga version of Cygnix ?

_________________
Fred Booth
========================================
A500, A600, A1200 c/w Mediator and 030
AmigaOne and OS4.1
Mac LCII, G4 Powermac running OSX + Amigakit and MorphOS 3.0
Dell Mini 10 Netbook running IcAros and AmigaForever+Amikit+AmigaSys
2006 Macb

@AmigaMac

Quote:

If one was to waste time with Mono on the Amiga platform and wanted to handle GUI related stuff; why not use Feelin, which defines GUI objects in XML and would be a good avenue...

I was about to suggest the same thing. I can't figure out why Feelin isn't used more.

_________________
...wait... what?

@yttriumox

Don't worry, I know exactly what Mono is, I've followed Mono since the days before Novell acquired Ximian and Miguel de Icaza's pet project to take advantage of Microsoft's open specification of .NET. But you hit the nail on the head, Mono will always be a step behind .NET. I think the only way for Mono to be taken seriously is if it leads the charge for .NET type cross-platform development and make Mono more popular than .NET for this sort of targeted application development.

Last edited by AmigaMac on 05-Aug-2008 at 02:43 AM.

_________________

@AmigaMac
I really don't want to get in to a flame war here, but I find your comments really quite unusual... Quote:

I think the only way for Mono to be taken seriously is...

But my point is that Mono is ALREADY taken seriously. It's used in a number of large commercial projects right now.

Quote:

Mono will always be a step behind .NET

But that's not really a problem. Mono is currently .NET 2.0 "feature complete" (realistically speaking), and even though Microsoft are up to .NET 3.5, it's very rare anyone actually writes for anything higher than .NET 2.0 unless they absolutely NEED the features provided in the later versions. People generally target the lowest "useful" version (which is often even .NET 1.1 still). Mono also of course already includes some elements from .NET 3.x, which is how the Moonlight project (Mono / Silverlight) works.

Quote:

...is if it leads the charge for .NET type cross-platform development and make Mono more popular than .NET for this sort of targeted application development.

That's not the target of Mono. In the "ideal world" for Mono, there will be NO difference between Mono and .NET. The idea is that you can take "any old .NET app" and just run it. It's a fair way there already to that goal, and any application developer that keeps it in mind can achieve this without any trouble at all. (not even mentioning the number of developers who target Mono specifically, and then have it "just work" on .NET under Windows)

Quote:

OldAmigan wrote: Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not a programmer, so I may very well come out with a right pile of **** here, but would it make it any easier to port it to Edgar Schwan's Amiga version of Cygnix ?

I'm going to need some kind of Unix-like layer, or more specifically POSIX, to save myself a lot of work, yes. I haven't looked at Cygnix at all, but I believe there's a few options around, so I'll have to try to figure out the best one to do so.

However... see my next post

@Everyone
I just spent some time reading the Mono porting guide and looking through the source code, and I'm sort of regretting selling my AmigaOne even more now. I think a PPC only port at first (with m68k later) would be MUCH MUCH easier since I can use a lot from the Mac version (which exists for both PPC and intel). There is currently no port for m68k, which means I would need to dig out an old m68k Assembler handbook for porting the JIT, or find someone who knows a LOT more about it than I do.
Actually doing an m68k port will probably take me quite a few months without help. Doing a PPC port (given that I can also for a good POSIX layer library to use) should take me only a week or two, depending on how busy I am at my day job.

So, now I find myself in the situation of wondering if I should really do this... I don't have a PPC system with AmigaOS on it (my only PPC is an old Mac running Ubuntu), and I'm not sure if an m68k port is something I can do without help.

Anyone local to me (Hannover, Germany, or reasonable driving distance from it) with a PPC system of any kind that I can play with? (classic with a PPC expansion is fine!)

@yttriumox

As a Java, C++ and C# developer myself, I certainly get the appeal of Mono on Amiga to fellow developers. C# is such a productive environment that it is hard not to love it (unless you are some Microsoft-hating zealot). Personally, I'd love to see Mono available as an option on Amiga.

Of course, ultimately end-users don't care much about how productive the programmer was when creating the software they use.. So are the advantages of Mono/AMIGA saleable to end-users? I'm sure you say, "but the apps, there will be apps". And I agree, hundreds or thousands of apps would come along with a robust Mono port. Still, there are a few counterpoints I could see, though. So let me throw those out there so you can consider them.

< devils_advocate >

1. The runtime is relatively large (for Amiga)

Not sure about the size of Mono's runtime, but last I looked, .NET runtime was pushing 35MB or more. For an operating system that differentiates itself primarily on small footprint, efficiency, real-time feel etc. taking on such a large runtime with the pauses of Garbage Collection etc. -- this may seem to some as "counter-Amiga".

2. Anti-establishment no more

IMO, Amiga is the "anti-establishment" platform. So, what's the point if you usher in "the establishment" through the front door.

When all the OSs out there run the exact same apps, the "experience difference" between Amiga, Windows, Mac, Linux etc. deminishes. Building Amiga rich-client apps in Mono might compromise the unique Amiga "modes and methods" for the sake of standardization. And, if not for want of a unique albeit non-standard computing experience, why would people hold out so long for Amiga's return.

An Amiga chock full of Mono apps would make little or no sense. if you spend a good percentage of your time using Mono apps on Amiga, you'd be better off sticking with Windows or Linux.

3. No Server-side appeal

IMO, the major appeal of Mono on Linux is ADO.NET and ASP.NET. Linux is huge on the server side, and being able to use Mono on a low-cost Linux web server makes a lot of sense. Especially if you are assembling a web app that needs tight integration with a LAMP or Java/Tomcat application on the back-end. Then, Mono/Linux is a great solution.

This justification evaporates on Amiga, as no server-side story exists TMK. So you'd be relying completely on the appeal of Mono to build rich-client apps for Amiga. To me, that weakens it significantly as compared to the Linux justification for Mono. Especially since most of the new apps built today are web apps.

4. Stronger preference for Native apps on Amiga vs. other platforms

This isn't true for Windows, or Linux. Windows has no preference for native apps. Especially with Vista since .NET is included, .NET is native.

Most Linux distributions either include Mono or the package manager makes it a check box away.

On Amiga, Mono apps would probably be more a second-class citizen, so any popular Mono rich-client apps would likely demonstrate a niche and motivate someone to fill it with a native alternative. I.e. the appeal of Mono/Amiga might have a hard time building as it successes are replaced with native alternatives.

< / devils_advocate >

Again, I'm certainly not against the idea. I think it would be a large and worthwhile undertaking. However, I like to weight the pros and cons and anticipate the arguments against. So, this is offered in that spirit.

J

Last edited by jingof on 05-Aug-2008 at 07:56 AM.
Last edited by jingof on 05-Aug-2008 at 07:51 AM.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

Quote:

jingof wrote: As a Java, C++ and C# developer myself, I certainly get the appeal of Mono on Amiga to fellow developers. C# is such a productive environment that it is hard not to love it (unless you are some Microsoft-hating zealot).

LOL.. this is zealotworld.net

C# is only worthwhile if it makes you a millionaire..

_________________
Men who have girlies in their avatars are Girliemen!

@Darth_X

Quote:

LOL.. this is zealotworld.net

You saw right through me! Love the domain name. It's available by the way.

Quote:

C# is only worthwhile if it makes you a millionaire

Right. So you're saying it's no different than any other language.

Last edited by jingof on 05-Aug-2008 at 08:29 AM.
Last edited by jingof on 05-Aug-2008 at 08:27 AM.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000

@jingof
Thanks for your feedback, and the "devils advocate" points. You definitely make some good points, but I still don't think it's enough to persuade me away from the idea (if I can do it at all, as per my last post )

Quote:

1. The runtime is relatively large (for Amiga)

Yes, it is... but on an expanded PPC based system (or a modern device if we ever get any new ones), it's not really so bad.

Quote:

2. Anti-establishment no more

I'd rather have some usable apps than "anti-establishment" appeal!

Quote:

3. No Server-side appeal

True, and I did think about this a bit... however most of the apps I write for work in Mono are actually NOT server-side things (to be honest, I despise web based stuff and leave that to others - the only server-side stuff I write is using my company's own API (which is also .NET/Mono based) for the computer to act as a server to our MFPs (Copier/Printer/Scanner/Fax/things) - I work for Konica Minolta), and there's a fair amount of other non-server apps out there. Definitely enough that it's still of interest.
A simple example is an app I wrote for work that organises files as they come in to a folder. It was designed as a tool to aid in network scanning, but I also use it at home on my Mac for organising photos from my digital camera - I just drag/drop all the files to one folder on my desktop, and the program picks them up and organises (renames/moves) them for me based on rules defined in the application's config. Kind of a like a mass-renamer app, but with more automation and some clever tricks thrown in.
Also, after getting Mono itself up and running, I'd be quite keen to look at that Paint.NET mono project that I mentioned in an earlier post and get that working nicely. It's a pretty nice paint program (I prefer it to anything currently on Amiga, and indeed I even prefer it to the "heavyweights" like GIMP or Photoshop for small stuff just because it's dead easy to use).

Quote:

4. Stronger preference for Native apps on Amiga vs. other platforms

Actually, this could be a good thing for spurring on native development. If I can run a mono app on my system, but find it a little "sluggish" or "uncomfortable", then I'm more likely to write a native replacement than if I didn't have the app at all.


In general, my idea is not to fill AmigaOS with Mono apps, but rather just to give another alternative and open up a whole lot of currently existing applications to Amiga users that we don't already have access to on our Amigas. I wouldn't really be expecting anyone to push Mono itself to end users, more that all of a sudden Amiga users can say, "hey, I can run this app I just found online, since it works with Mono!".

@yttriumox

Quote:

I'd rather have some usable apps than "anti-establishment" appeal!

Yeah.. me too. Not sure the M$ "dislikers" in the amiga community would feel the same way is all I'm saying.

Quote:

but I still don't think it's enough to persuade me away from the idea

Quote:

"hey, I can run this app I just found online, since it works with Mono!".

Well, you've got me convinced. I say, more power to you! Can't wait to see the outcome of this.

_________________
Vic-20, C-64, C-128
Amiga 1000, 3000
AmigaOne X1000