…when will you update actual Mono Framework?
Except, this is not about GC, this is about C# 5/6. I know about a hack done by one of dev, but I want proper solution.
When IL2CPP is available for all platforms they’ll update the .NET profile, until then they can’t update it because of the Xamarin dependency for some platforms. They have to be able to update it for everything at once.
3 Likes
So there’s 4 separate features:
- Update C# compiler so you can use C# 6.
- Update Mono runtime to newest version.
- Update .NET class libraries so you can use .NET 4.5 APIs (depends on #2).
- Replace garbage collector.
We’re working on all of them incrementally, but so far we have no ETAs of when the work will be done. We need to do this work very carefully, as changing such stuff has extremely high risk of breaking existing projects.
8 Likes
@Tautvydas-Zilys - I’m assuming even after you get through step 3, there will be some things such as the “dynamic” keyword that are going to have limited availability as I’m not sure it will work in the AOT environments.
Indeed, some use cases of dynamic will not work on IL2CPP, while others will.
1 Like
Yes, and that’s why I want those features available via standard Mono platform when performance is good enough with it.
…then make a deal with Xamarin so it can be licensed?
It still won’t work. Wouldn’t work on iOS, wouldn’t work on WebGL, wouldn’t work on Xbox 360 / One, WiiU, PS3, or PS4 just to name a few. Those are all AOT environments (even when using Mono).
I disagree. Xamarin is a dependency, and they can ransom Unity for as much money as they want and make the licensing prohibitive. I rather like the move to get away from that dependency.
I don’t think Xamarin would do that and contract between UT and Xamarin can have clause ensuring that. I’ve met few guys who work at Xamarin online and they all were nice people.
I also would run away from that.
When you install Unity, the new install is Visual Studio Community 2015.
Unity didn’t upgrade Mono because of licensing issues:
https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/446091664667721728
There are more signs than just that. But whoever was interested in that topic has seen bits of information here and there about it.
We have waited so long for a Mono update, that Unity now has to decide whether they want to wait a little longer and then maybe switch to .NET core when it is done.
https://www.dotnetfoundation.org/netcore
The extreme cost of the path Unity have taken is a pretty good indicator that, for some reason or other, the idea of licensing with Xamarin wasn’t going to work. I mean, the people at Unity are pretty smart, know more about this specific issue than any of us, and have been thinking longer and harder about it than us.
Edited for clarity.
2 Likes
Even if mono was licensed, it would not solve the problem of mono not being available on all the platforms that Unity supports (now/future). IL2CPP is a way of ensuring that.
3 Likes
I agree with @Dantus that now having .NET Core open source, we could see many options such as the likes of IL2CPP moving way ahead from where it ‘may’ have been with continuing on with Mono…
(besides, I took a serious look at Xamarin after the partnership with MS, and just said no… the pricing even for indies was over my head)
Thank you for this link because it confirms what I’ve actually known. Unity devs are just throwing a hissy fit because they don’t like the price, even if they totally CAN AFFORD IT.
I mean, it can’t be more expensive that licensing say, PhysX or FMOD.
I would be interested to hear from you what the actual price and the conditions of the potential deal were. You can’t know what the conditions were! E.g. Xamarin could have asked for a fee per customer. It is their product and they can dictate the conditions! If they see Unity as competitor to their own business, they can even deny a special license!
PhysX and FMOD are completely different in that regard.
3 Likes
How does this confirm anything aside from the fact that Xamarin was willing to negotiate a license?
PhysX is free for commercial use.
It’s also quite possible (totally speculating here) that Xamarin wanted to license on a royalty model per customer, which doesn’t fit with Unity’s licensing model. Square peg, meet round hole.
2 Likes