Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails

[Ben Maurer <bmaurer andrew cmu edu>]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 00:03 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >  * Should applications built with anything in the Bindings suite be accepted
> >    into the Desktop suite?
> >   - short to medium term
> >   - do we want the central components of our software to potentially be
> >     written in five to ten different languages and/or runtimes/platforms?
> >   - this leads very neatly into the next question
> >
> >
> >  * Is it time to redefine the suites and/or 'franchise' the release process?
> >   - medium term
> >   - this is not just about new suites, it's about redefining the current
> >     Desktop suite by its integration interfaces and central components; we
> >     need to make current suites serve us better before kicking off new stuff
> >   - http://perkypants.org/blog/2005/05/19/1116533413/ (last few paras)
> >   - start slow: don't even create new suites to begin with, just make sure
> >     the small number of apps that want to adopt our process and standards
> >     right now can do so - new/further governance of suites can come later
>
> Regarding just the above two issues:
>
> What if there is a bilateral subdivision of the desktop suite which
> helps *distributors* distinguish between applications that support being
> compiled AOT (C, C++, Mono AOT, Java GCJ, D?) and applications that run
> JIT'd/VM'd (Mono JIT, Java JRE, Python, Ruby, Perl). It seems to me
> that, at least conceptually if not technically, the division between the
> two camps above is one of AOT/native compilation versus
> JIT/VM'd/interpreted compilation.

I don't think this is an item worth dividing on. For languages like Mono 
(and Java with GCJ), the compile or JIT (for Mono) or interp (for GCJ) is 
purely a case-by-case performance decision.

> Notice that both Java and Mono could be in either camp depending on how
> the project's Makefiles are written ... in both the Mono AOT and Java
> GCJ cases, libraries in use are shared between processes. Execution
> performance is also (generally) higher.

The statement that performance is generally higher isn't quite correct. 
However, it's completely besides the point for this discussion.

> It would be interesting to get Miguel's take on whether or not Mono AOT
> usage should be encouraged. In the Java GCJ case, it is encouraged for
> use by its authors.

Again, completely besides the point. The decision to AOT would be based on 
measurements. It doesn't address any of the issues in Jeff's email.

-- Ben