| |||||||||||||
The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOMEThe .NET API patent, mono, and GNOMEPosted Jan 21, 2006 22:32 UTC (Sat) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048)In reply to: The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME by tzafrir Parent article: The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME
Yes, it is, but it is too low level. If you think of it, each one of Python, Haskell, Scheme (and others) must implement two things: a compiler and a runtime system. And their runtimes and compilers are all incompatible (again, try using some Python classes from Scheme, unchanged: you can't). In the .NET world, they should just provide a compiler, and bingo, you have everything you need, and full interoperability. It is the same goal of Parrot, but based on an open standard and an already mature platform... I hope I made my point clearer... libc is OK, but it's not enough for this kind of goal, you need more, and the .NET ECMA specs provide just that "more".
(Log in to post comments)
The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME Posted Jan 25, 2006 2:44 UTC (Wed) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] C++ compiler people (and sometimes even C compiler people) routinely fail to produce compatible runtimes between different versions of the same compiler for the same language, despite fairly strict architectural constraints. They apparently do this for performance or correctness reasons, or perhaps to implement new features.
How can we expect people working on *different languages* to produce compatible runtime code, without that code eventually sucking?
The only thing magical about i386 bytecodes (which is what most of libc is made of) is that it is seriously inconvenient to change; otherwise, there would be new versions of the machine language in the CPU just as often as new compilers come out today.
The .NET API patent, mono, and GNOME Posted Jan 25, 2006 6:54 UTC (Wed) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] How can we expect people working on *different languages* to produce compatible runtime code, without that code eventually sucking? Fairly easy: the people interested in the languages do not produce the runtime code, they use the exisitng one (with clear specifications by ECMA and ISO) and produce only a compiler for their language. Less work for language people, and less mess for everybody else. And BTW, their compiler does not need to be ported to any CPU architecture, it is the runtime that provides the JIT compiler (and also an AOT one if you want it). Hopefully, we (runtime people) will provide a runtime that does not suck ;-) At least this is the .NET vision of things (which, incidentally, is in practice also the Parrot one, even if IMHO .NET and Mono are more mature now).
|
|||||||||||||