Do not expect. NET to be cross-platform

Someone told me this. Their company developed a set-top box, which was originally made by Windows XP +. NET. But because the set-top box is offered to the customer free of charge, and a Windows XP requires $88, the cost doubles. In the end, the company's senior management did not want to spend the money. in Linux, Mono was used to re-implement all the functions, but encountered various problems during the development process and frequent crashes.

I think it's really funny that someone has taken. NET cross-platform into account. It can be said that there is no lower limit on IQ!

Only a small part of Microsoft. NET is submitted to ECMA, while other parts of the API can be considered as Windows API pro. Moreover, Microsoft's intention to use. NET as a Windows API Pro version is becoming increasingly apparent.

For example, the AutoResetEvent, ManualResetEvent, and Overlapped in the System. Threading namespace are only encapsulation of Windows APIs. Java's thread framework is self-contained, and. NET is not.

Microsoft's resources are not infinite, and Microsoft cannot cope with the re-design of the entire class library. The language specification and virtual machine are excellent, but the application layer class library, many parts, have some problems, simple encapsulation of Windows API, lack of design, including System. security. cryptography, System.. Net.

. NET, just like the MFC of the past, many class libraries are encapsulated by Windows APIs, not a self-built framework. If you do not know Windows APIs, it is unlikely to be used. At the same time, porting to other platforms is also an extremely difficult task, unless you can implement a set of Windows APIs on other platforms.

Novell Mono is a joke. Migrating. NET to Linux is just as ridiculous as migrating MFC to Linux.