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

[Adam Treat]

Rhys,

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.

--Adam

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
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers