Becouse 'porting' doesn't mean magically converting,
Yeah I know. As it happens, I do this kind of thing professionally every day. Ironic? So it was easier to port BLIde from 1.1 to 2.0?
It was a comment about the amount of work involved, rather than the completeness of mono. Have you seen the code of any of them or have any idea how they internally work?
Well I haven't seen any of the code (as far as I'm aware the source code isn't available), but I have a pretty good idea how it would work (if it was well written, which it seems to be), and am no stranger to porting applications from one platform to another (am currently working on porting several integrated web applications and services from Windows/ASP to Linux/J2EE - so trust me when I say I know the amount of work involved). (that would have been ironic, and it would have had the same knowledge basis about BLIde internal API in my opinion)
Since there isn't a COBOL compiler for mono (only .Net), and aside from performance issues, there really isn't much of a reason to translate an application from one language on the same platform to another. So it wouldn't have been ironic at all. Just stupid. By the way, where did you get the impression that I'm so convinced, maybe here:
No. From every .Net discussion ever, when someone points out that .Net isn't cross platform, you instantly chime in with, but it is because of mono. I'm glad to see you've finally realized that while mono definitely gets an A for effort, it is not a complete .Net implementation. With the imminent release of .Net 3.5 the gap isn't likely to get any narrower.