Re: [Vala] Removal of Mono

["Sam Liddicott" <sam liddicott com>]

I've trimmed my response after reading Aaron Andersen's post, who
expressed very neatly the issues at stake.

I'm clarifying on-topic as I seem to have given Michael the wrong
impression on a topic that is more politically charged than i realised.

* Michael B. Trausch wrote, On 26/06/09 16:03:
> Last message on-list on this topic, because *this topic does not
> belong here*.
I was talking about influencing the development of the vala language
which does belong here.

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>
> > * Michael B. Trausch wrote, On 26/06/09 13:54:
>
> While Mono may be in the back of many people's minds (whether
> correctly or not) is irrelevant. This list's only topic is Vala. Mono
> does not relate directly to Vala, and C# only does in that Vala is
> "C#-like" and potentially in the discussions of adopting certain
> semantics or grammar from C#.

That's what I'm taking about!

There may be aspects of C# (particularly relating to interfaces) or
other aspects which vala could unofficially make room for to aid a
migration of C# programs if the political move from mono increases.
THAT'S what I'm talking about.

> > There is enough long-term noise about the removal of mono, and any
> > action on this could result in an increased usage of vala. Where's the
> > harm in being prepared for this?
>
> That makes no sense, unless you assume that Vala is only "prepared"
> for a userbase of nil.

The issue being raised is not whether or not Vala is prepared for any
size of user base, but that we might become aware of what degree it is
worth making vala "prepared" for a load of C# users with existing code,
and what that preparation might be, and what preparation would be
acceptable within the direction that the vala language is developing.
The answer may be "none" but I don't want to presume that.

> It is an evolving language that takes a fresh approach to native-code
> systems with assisted memory management and no additional run-time
> requirements besides already-existing libraries.

yes! Pricisely because it is evolving it is worth keeping a "weather
eye" open. You are making the case for this discussion being on-topic
quite effectively.

> That is quite an accomplishment, and dicussion which pertains to it
> directly is quite welcome. If you feel that there is some manner in
> which it isn't "prepared" for a particular usage, address that point
> directly, not any tangents from that point.

That statement is almost directly what "keep a weather eye open" meant
in my original post. I was inviting those who felt that Vala might not
be prepared for porting from C# to speak out, and inviting the rest to
be open to notice such things as it may turn out to be particularly
relevant. It was a call to spot low hanging fruit.

> Blindly changing from the CLI to something like Vala is possible,
> maybe even desired, in some cases. But Vala is not intended to replace
> the CLI nor the BCL (particularly the latter, since it does not have a
> specialized RTL). If there is a feature that you feel is missing,
> discuss that instead of "[the] removal of Mono", because that is
> not-at-all relevant to Vala.

nor did I bring it up, I'm not sure why you are mentioning it. The
removal of mono can only be relevant to Vala if it actually happens.
Until we know whether or not it will happen we cannot know whether or
not it will actually be relevant to Vala, but the the degree of
relevance will be governed by the degree of preparation (whether planned
or incidental).



Sam