Comments on: Monodevelop vs Visual Studio – or what the monoteam could learn from VS http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/2010/01/16/monodevelop-vs-visual-studio-or-what-the-monoteam-could-learn-from-vs/ Blog about PHP, HTML, CSS, patents and all things inbetween Sat, 08 Jan 2011 23:10:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Trond Husø http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/2010/01/16/monodevelop-vs-visual-studio-or-what-the-monoteam-could-learn-from-vs/comment-page-1/#comment-294 Trond Husø Sat, 08 Jan 2011 23:10:32 +0000 http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/?p=163#comment-294 You've probably found this out already: The difference between MonoDevelop is that this is a standalone RAD IDE, while Monotools is a plugin for Visual Studio this so that you can use the latter RAD IDE to develop Mono applications. You’ve probably found this out already: The difference between MonoDevelop is that this is a standalone RAD IDE, while Monotools is a plugin for Visual Studio this so that you can use the latter RAD IDE to develop Mono applications.

]]> By: Srinivas http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/2010/01/16/monodevelop-vs-visual-studio-or-what-the-monoteam-could-learn-from-vs/comment-page-1/#comment-277 Srinivas Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:39:48 +0000 http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/?p=163#comment-277 Need to know what is the difference between MonoDevelop vs Monotools for visual studio. because Monodevelop is freeware where as MonoTools is a paid version Need to know what is the difference between MonoDevelop vs Monotools for visual studio. because Monodevelop is freeware where as MonoTools is a paid version

]]> By: Michael Hutchinson http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/2010/01/16/monodevelop-vs-visual-studio-or-what-the-monoteam-could-learn-from-vs/comment-page-1/#comment-101 Michael Hutchinson Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:57:48 +0000 http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/?p=163#comment-101 I really don't see what that would gain you. Sure, you can install .NET 1.1, 2.0, 4.0 side-by side, but the newer frameworks are backwards-compatible anyway (except for a few obscure changes), so this is only to ensure ultra-backwards-compatibility, and it isn't much different to what Mono does with having all the 1.0 and 2.0-3.5 assemblies anyway. Also, Mono versions really don't map easily to .NET versions at all, and are much more frequent. I really don’t see what that would gain you. Sure, you can install .NET 1.1, 2.0, 4.0 side-by side, but the newer frameworks are backwards-compatible anyway (except for a few obscure changes), so this is only to ensure ultra-backwards-compatibility, and it isn’t much different to what Mono does with having all the 1.0 and 2.0-3.5 assemblies anyway. Also, Mono versions really don’t map easily to .NET versions at all, and are much more frequent.

]]> By: Trond Husø http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/2010/01/16/monodevelop-vs-visual-studio-or-what-the-monoteam-could-learn-from-vs/comment-page-1/#comment-100 Trond Husø Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:19:48 +0000 http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/?p=163#comment-100 Point taken, but this can be fixed like they do in .Net. If I upgrade to .Net framework 3.5 I still have .Net 2.0 on the machine, and so when I compile an application I just tell which version I want to use. This, I believe is working from version 2.0 and upwards. It would not surprise me if you know more about this than I do though. Point taken, but this can be fixed like they do in .Net. If I upgrade to .Net framework 3.5 I still have .Net 2.0 on the machine, and so when I compile an application I just tell which version I want to use. This, I believe is working from version 2.0 and upwards.
It would not surprise me if you know more about this than I do though.

]]> By: Michael Hutchinson http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/2010/01/16/monodevelop-vs-visual-studio-or-what-the-monoteam-could-learn-from-vs/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Michael Hutchinson Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:24:40 +0000 http://www.trondhuso.no/blog/?p=163#comment-97 Firstly, if the MD 2.2 package you used did not depend on MD 2.4.x, then the package you used had broken dependencies. The MD 2.2 build scripts certainly require 2.4, as do the packages that we ship for openSUSE and Mac. Distros have their own often complicated policies and requirements for packaging and shipping, so we leave that to the distros' own experts. We've considered tying MD releases to Mono releases a few times, but synchronizing the releases would really delay getting features to users. We prefer to do smaller incremental releases so users can get the features that are done as soon as possible. Not many features in MD are directly dependent on Mono versions. Also, it's useful to support running MonoDevelop on slightly older versions of Mono because upgrading MonoDevelop is much easier than upgrading Mono. Mono's a core framework that other apps depend on, so Mono packagers have to be extra-careful that they don't break Mono apps like Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy, etc. If we were tying releases together, MD 2.2 would have required Mono 2.6, but the upcoming and most recent release versions of Ubuntu only have Mono 2.4, so Ubuntu users would not have been able to run MD 2.2. Firstly, if the MD 2.2 package you used did not depend on MD 2.4.x, then the package you used had broken dependencies. The MD 2.2 build scripts certainly require 2.4, as do the packages that we ship for openSUSE and Mac. Distros have their own often complicated policies and requirements for packaging and shipping, so we leave that to the distros’ own experts.

We’ve considered tying MD releases to Mono releases a few times, but synchronizing the releases would really delay getting features to users. We prefer to do smaller incremental releases so users can get the features that are done as soon as possible. Not many features in MD are directly dependent on Mono versions.

Also, it’s useful to support running MonoDevelop on slightly older versions of Mono because upgrading MonoDevelop is much easier than upgrading Mono. Mono’s a core framework that other apps depend on, so Mono packagers have to be extra-careful that they don’t break Mono apps like Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy, etc. If we were tying releases together, MD 2.2 would have required Mono 2.6, but the upcoming and most recent release versions of Ubuntu only have Mono 2.4, so Ubuntu users would not have been able to run MD 2.2.

]]>