Re: Cross-platform GWT-like system for C#?

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

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

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:20 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>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

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:56:35 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>>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

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:21:02 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>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

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:35:09 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>>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...

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

[Rudy Velthuis]

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:20 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

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 ?

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

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:58:39 -0400
Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>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.

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.

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/Wik...e=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