One thing I don't like about MonoTouch applications - More Wally - Wallace B. McClure
in

MoreWally.com

Giving people what they want, More Wally. This is the technical and personal blog site of
Wallace B. (Wally) McClure.

This Blog

Syndication

Tags

Friends of Wally

Technical Sites

More Wally - Wallace B. McClure

This blog will have all kinds of posts about Wally McClure. In it, there will be tons of .NET and computer programming posts as well as Wally's views on life in general. As you might guess, this site and blog help you get More Wally in your life. What more could anyone want? .NET, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, AJAX, Atlas, Microsoft AJAX Library, ASP.NET AJAX, and now Windows Azure............follow me on twitter at Wally

One thing I don't like about MonoTouch applications

With .NET, executables are fairly small. Every application shares the .NET Framework, so the applications don’t have their own copy of the framework. MonoTouch is not built into the iPhone. MonoTouch applications must have their own copy of the framework. MonoTouch is compiled into your application. The result is that MonoTouch applications are larger on disk than a comparable .NET application.  Think starting at 5 megabytes for the MT framework and going up from there vs very small with .NET exes.

Want to know more about developing with the iPhone?  Check out my Wrox Blox eBook on developing applications with MonoTouch for the iPhone/iPod touch for .NET/C# developers. 

Published Jan 06 2010, 08:00 AM by wallym
Filed under: , , , ,

Comments

 

chrisntr said:

The difference between a .Net framework being re-used and the monotouch/mono framework being re-used is that the Monotouch version is Linked - so it might not have the right code in it to share. I think there's pros and cons for each way. :)

January 6, 2010 8:54 AM
 

tgueth said:

Well, at least it avoids DLL hell :)

Seriously, I understand the desire to reduce program footprint but unless Apple allows a way for a "supplier" to have a dll shareable (I am sure the hackers have found a way), then we go back to old days where all libraries were included in the executable.

February 4, 2010 2:55 PM
2006 - Wallace B. McClure
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems