From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Sun Jan 31 18:04:55 2010 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=oDf3zl2aZG+SRkbU21W0zSft5SzJ5ESCcNW3rvbRQhw=; b=ZeCaPNRHP5VaHst+fc3AOSZ2e0+h4nf3z82zk+9Q9QkxJ4Wwuvwkoq7HqxEWf5GXkC QEYbQpOSfCsOzYOU/b8l4z5vWFbmpcyjP4wekFdq7C8q3UCvlcKZAQ1UqF4BHyqEuTe4 /LjVC5YdF+aXzR2W7H1EyldpjL+HrRIFnEMpU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=TGDk4UvDQmWInV4TzK4SV1G+PT01E6U34UBbxbKB4bo95AL1RPPtWDJNQYNXgZ+aHT pE0THcVfYMBTnJXn5fGWf9+nFDBrlunYjXiGmowRFAYm4+A5bkUXtt66YBglXcUEHoUi P8FYqVsswYLP/qLN/lVsPD6iuoHxWN1xf5Ybs= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <11a6f2b11001270642j41b73ecepfd4a7a7cbb3fb354@mail.gmail.com> <11a6f2b11001302144r453c353xdb21efddf53b2ee4@mail.gmail.com> <231FB8B6-8A4A-4EE1-A09B-33C8D77817DC@seznam.cz> <4B65FC7E.6090600@online.no> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:02:57 -0600 Message-ID: <11a6f2b11001311502h52f76701s732f1a1f6f913c77@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [MiNT] mono From: Paul Wratt To: mint Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: paul.wratt@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Helmut Karlowski wrote: > Am 31.01.2010, 22:56 Uhr, schrieb Jo Even Skarstein : > >> We got to think about where we're headed. Is the ultimate goal of >> FreeMiNT that it should mimic unix as closely as possible? I'm not very >> interested in unix stuff, I just want to create and use GEM-applications >> in a stable, multitasking environment. I'd rather see time and effort > > I agree here, but that doesn't mean that VM and threads should not be > implemented. > > As for mono: I think first do the above and then see what is possible. > > -- > Helmut Karlowski > Agreed I see mono as the pivot point of what you can and cant develop on a native platform (combined with modern gcc & dev environments), and weather or not the resulting programs can perform of the current "average" spec TOS plaform I do however think that with some collective/concerted effort to beef up the speed and/or size of MiNT and TOS/GEM libs, that there would be at least a couple more solid years work of performance out of those same average spec machines To be clear here though, there is a boundary which once crossed will doom current average machines to STFM/STE status, which is what I refer to atm as TO5 and TO5 Legacy Free, essentially creating an upper limit of respectable "modern OS" for these self same average spec machines, while at the same time allow for newer and future hardware to benefit immensely without loosing compatibility, thereby drawing out the older platforms lifespan for another decade, at least at source level, synonymous with what DMG packages achieve Well, the research shows it is viable, so its just a matter of seeing how far it can be pushed, and what the real benefits for either side of the equation are.. Lets see a new stable MiNT release and then some good reforms on the XaAES side to assist in the development of those ideas, I'm definitely looking forward to the next 12 months of development work in this and other related areas.. some of which is going to be really exciting, even for those average spec machines an platforms.. Cheers Paul