Cross-platform GWT-like system for C#?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael B. Trausch
  • Start date Start date
M

Michael B. Trausch

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
 
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Michael said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Michael said:
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.
Click to expand...

And they distribute it as a VS plugin ?

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

http://projects.nikhilk.net/ScriptSharp/Understanding.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 said:
... As an MSI file.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

I believe you can manually unpack an MSI.

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

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

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 believe you can manually unpack an MSI.

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

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

--- Mike
 
Michael said:
Eh, almost any. There are licenses I won't use, though, mostly those
that do not let you redistribute commercially;
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

Those are most definitely not open source licenses.

Arne
 
Those are most definitely not open source licenses.
Click to expand...

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
 
Michael said:
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...
Click to expand...

In my experience MS knows the difference between open source and
making source available with restrictions and often use a term
"shared source" to include both.

And it is rather well known that:
MS-PL and MS-RL are open source
MS-RSL, MS-LPL, MS-LRL, MSR-LA etc. are not open source

http://research.microsoft.com/os/Singularity/ does not claim
to be open source either.

Arne
 
In my experience MS knows the difference between open source and
making source available with restrictions and often use a term
"shared source" to include both.

And it is rather well known that:
MS-PL and MS-RL are open source
MS-RSL, MS-LPL, MS-LRL, MSR-LA etc. are not open source

http://research.microsoft.com/os/Singularity/ does not claim
to be open source either.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's on CodePlex, which is "Microsoft's open source project
hosting web site" and an "Open Source Project Community."[1] A bit
misleading, if one does not read the fine print. Lots of people seem
to think that since CodePlex is exclusively for open source software.
The logo and the opening statement on the home page would tend to evoke
that assumption, as well. It is a bit misleading.

--- Mike

[1] http://www.codeplex.com/ -- see the intro blurb and logo sections.
 
Arne said:
And they distribute it as a VS plugin ?
Click to expand...

Is it installable in the (free, as in beer) VS 2008 Shell, perhaps?
--
Rudy Velthuis http://rvelthuis.de

"Roses are #FF0000
Violets are #0000FF
All my base are belong to you!"
-- Geek Valentine T-shirt at ThinkGeek
 
Michael said:
In my experience MS knows the difference between open source and
making source available with restrictions and often use a term
"shared source" to include both.

And it is rather well known that:
MS-PL and MS-RL are open source
MS-RSL, MS-LPL, MS-LRL, MSR-LA etc. are not open source

http://research.microsoft.com/os/Singularity/ does not claim
to be open source either.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's on CodePlex, which is "Microsoft's open source project
hosting web site" and an "Open Source Project Community."[1] A bit
misleading, if one does not read the fine print. Lots of people seem
to think that since CodePlex is exclusively for open source software.
The logo and the opening statement on the home page would tend to evoke
that assumption, as well. It is a bit misleading.
Click to expand...

Good point.

One has to go to http://www.codeplex.com/Legal/Terms.aspx
to read the fine print about checking the individual licenses.

http://www.codeplex.com/CodePlex/Wiki/View.aspx?title=CodePlex FAQ&referringTitle=Home#License

is also interesting. It seems as if the use of a non open source license
(per OSI definition) require a special permission.

I guess MS applied for special permission for Singularity - and got it.

Arne
 
Back
Top