I've been looking for this for a few days now without any luck, so I
figure I'll post asking if anyone knows of such a thing.

The requirement would that it be cross-platform, easily accessible,
usable, and deployable on both Windows and GNU/Linux systems at a bare
minimum. Of course, this means that it has to work with at least Mono
and MonoDevelop, and should work with the respective .NET software from
Microsoft, too.

Anyone come across anything like this? Script# doesn't seem like it'd
be it, since it's only for Windows (though that looks like it'll
_eventually_ change, it doesn't seem that it will in the timeframe that
I am looking for).

Thanks,
Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.

"Michael B. Trausch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:20081023125104.34eac3f2@zest...

> I've been looking for this for a few days now without any luck, so I
> figure I'll post asking if anyone knows of such a thing.
>
> The requirement would that it be cross-platform, easily accessible,
> usable, and deployable on both Windows and GNU/Linux systems at a bare
> minimum. Of course, this means that it has to work with at least Mono
> and MonoDevelop, and should work with the respective .NET software from
> Microsoft, too.
>
> Anyone come across anything like this? Script# doesn't seem like it'd
> be it, since it's only for Windows (though that looks like it'll
> _eventually_ change, it doesn't seem that it will in the timeframe that
> I am looking for).

This doesn't answer your question, it's just my 2 cents....

I'm not thrilled with the cross-platforms toolkits I've seen. I have a
Windows IRC client that was written by *NIX-heads, and the windowing toolkit
they used gives a terribly non-Windows feel to the application.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:53:34 -0400
"Jeff Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> This doesn't answer your question, it's just my 2 cents....
>
> I'm not thrilled with the cross-platforms toolkits I've seen. I have
> a Windows IRC client that was written by *NIX-heads, and the
> windowing toolkit they used gives a terribly non-Windows feel to the
> application.

I am going to guess that the toolkit that they used was probably GTK+.
GTK+ does have a very different "feel" compared to native Windows API,
though it is quite portable. It'd probably be a good idea to have
something like WxWidgets for .NET, though not a set of bindings unless
that'd be less expensive than actually writing it in C# itself.
Perhaps implementing something like WxWidgets in C# would actually be a
decent project if someone wanted to do it.

I'm a rather big fan of GTK+ for no reason other than it is efficient
and has a very large set of bindings for many different languages.
It's strange that it's written in a form of object-oriented C. But,
whatever. I am kind of biased, I suppose, since I am a GNOME user and
haven't used Windows for more than a few minutes in a very long
time. :-)

In any case... I think the best solution will wind up being just to use
GWT for the Web frontend. Hopefully, integrating it won't be an issue,
though I still have to *learn* the GWT system first. It's not
something that I can suck in overnight. :-)

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> I've been looking for this for a few days now without any luck, so I
> figure I'll post asking if anyone knows of such a thing.
>
> The requirement would that it be cross-platform, easily accessible,
> usable, and deployable on both Windows and GNU/Linux systems at a bare
> minimum. Of course, this means that it has to work with at least Mono
> and MonoDevelop, and should work with the respective .NET software from
> Microsoft, too.
>
> Anyone come across anything like this? Script# doesn't seem like it'd
> be it, since it's only for Windows (though that looks like it'll
> _eventually_ change, it doesn't seem that it will in the timeframe that
> I am looking for).

I think Script# is it.

And since the output is JavaScript, then it should be deployable
on any system even though development may be tied to Windows.

Arne

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:20 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I think Script# is it.
>
> And since the output is JavaScript, then it should be deployable
> on any system even though development may be tied to Windows.

Understandable.

But, I don't run Windows. Well, allow me to clarify that: I have XP
and the .NET runtime, but not VS or any of the other components, just
the user stuff. I only use Windows to verify and test my software
there to ensure that it behaves exactly the same and if it doesn't,
figure out why. I haven't had to do that last part (yet), though.

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:20 -0400
> Arne Vajhøj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I think Script# is it.
>>
>> And since the output is JavaScript, then it should be deployable
>> on any system even though development may be tied to Windows.
>
> Understandable.
>
> But, I don't run Windows. Well, allow me to clarify that: I have XP
> and the .NET runtime, but not VS or any of the other components, just
> the user stuff. I only use Windows to verify and test my software
> there to ensure that it behaves exactly the same and if it doesn't,
> figure out why. I haven't had to do that last part (yet), though.

And they distribute it as a VS plugin ?

But you may be able to run it command line as well.

http://projects.nikhilk.net/ScriptSh...rstanding.aspx

says:

<quote>
Script# can be used either via the command-line or via MSBuild (the
preferred approach).

The Script# compiler can be invoked via ssc.exe (run ssc.exe -? for help
on options).
</quote>

If you are the adventurous type then you could even try to
get it working under mono (I assume all the tools are created
in .NET themselves).

Arne

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:56:35 -0400
> Arne Vajhøj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> the user stuff. I only use Windows to verify and test my software
>>> there to ensure that it behaves exactly the same and if it doesn't,
>>> figure out why. I haven't had to do that last part (yet), though.
>> And they distribute it as a VS plugin ?
>
> ... As an MSI file.

One for VS2005 and one for VS 2008.

> So, I'd have to reboot into Windows just to
> download it; I would *presume* that I should be able to use it just
> fine with MonoDevelop after I extract it and figure out what all is
> involved in it though I'd really prefer using something that was open
> source under an amicable license. At some point, Script# is going to
> be open source (at least per the Script# web site), but I am going to
> hazard a guess that it will not be under a very friendly license. I'd
> like to see it under BSD, MIT, or GPL, of course.

If you like both BSD and GPL, then I would have thought that any
open source license would be fine.

>> But you may be able to run it command line as well.
>>
>> http://projects.nikhilk.net/ScriptSh...rstanding.aspx
>>
>> says:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Script# can be used either via the command-line or via MSBuild (the
>> preferred approach).
>>
>> The Script# compiler can be invoked via ssc.exe (run ssc.exe -? for
>> help on options).
>> </quote>
>>
>> If you are the adventurous type then you could even try to
>> get it working under mono (I assume all the tools are created
>> in .NET themselves).
>>
>
> I'll check it out next time I boot into Windows. Of course, that will
> depend on whether Script#'s MSI downloads will even unpack or install
> without VS installed.

I believe you can manually unpack an MSI.

msiexec /a <name>.msi TARGETDIR=<path> /qb

Arne

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:21:02 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> > So, I'd have to reboot into Windows just to
> > download it; I would *presume* that I should be able to use it just
> > fine with MonoDevelop after I extract it and figure out what all is
> > involved in it though I'd really prefer using something that was
> > open source under an amicable license. At some point, Script# is
> > going to be open source (at least per the Script# web site), but I
> > am going to hazard a guess that it will not be under a very
> > friendly license. I'd like to see it under BSD, MIT, or GPL, of
> > course.
>
> If you like both BSD and GPL, then I would have thought that any
> open source license would be fine.
>

Eh, almost any. There are licenses I won't use, though, mostly those
that do not let you redistribute commercially; I like BSD because I can
redistribute code commercially without question, and (L)GPL for the
same reason, as long as the code base I am working with is compatible
with the GPL license. (LGPL is more lenient, but really only
applicable to libraries.)

Also, there are some "open source" licenses that let you look but not
let you modify. I don't like those. Or ones that let you look and
modify but not redistribute. I don't like those, either. Picky, I
know, but...

> > I'll check it out next time I boot into Windows. Of course, that
> > will depend on whether Script#'s MSI downloads will even unpack or
> > install without VS installed.
>
> I believe you can manually unpack an MSI.
>
> msiexec /a <name>.msi TARGETDIR=<path> /qb
>

Good to know. (I don't work with Windows much, obviously. :^)) Thanks!

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:21:02 -0400
> Arne Vajhøj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>>> So, I'd have to reboot into Windows just to
>>> download it; I would *presume* that I should be able to use it just
>>> fine with MonoDevelop after I extract it and figure out what all is
>>> involved in it though I'd really prefer using something that was
>>> open source under an amicable license. At some point, Script# is
>>> going to be open source (at least per the Script# web site), but I
>>> am going to hazard a guess that it will not be under a very
>>> friendly license. I'd like to see it under BSD, MIT, or GPL, of
>>> course.
>> If you like both BSD and GPL, then I would have thought that any
>> open source license would be fine.
>
> Eh, almost any. There are licenses I won't use, though, mostly those
> that do not let you redistribute commercially;

I don't think that it would be open source if that were not possible.

> Also, there are some "open source" licenses that let you look but not
> let you modify. I don't like those. Or ones that let you look and
> modify but not redistribute. I don't like those, either. Picky, I
> know, but...

Those are most definitely not open source licenses.

Arne

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:35:09 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Also, there are some "open source" licenses that let you look but
> > not let you modify. I don't like those. Or ones that let you look
> > and modify but not redistribute. I don't like those, either.
> > Picky, I know, but...
>
> Those are most definitely not open source licenses.

Hence why I put it in quotes... Microsoft calls some of its licenses
that prohibit various things "open source," even though they clearly
aren't (at least, to programmers). Managers see the buzz word though.

One of their favorite restrictions is "academic use", too. You can
look at the source but only for academic purposes. For example,
Singularity is described as an open source operating system, however,
it's licensed under the terms of the Microsoft Research License
Agreement, slightly modified to state that instead of "non-commercial
use only," it's for "non-commercial academic use only." Hence why I
won't download Singularity. The license is everything...

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/