Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9797
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? |
| Date | 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <j9e29t$uuh$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <j8qqqm$41c$1@speranza.aioe.org> <j8rlqc$19m$1@news.albasani.net> <4eb1bef4$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j8te92$3ms$1@news.albasani.net> <4eb33753$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
On 11/3/2011 5:52 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 11/3/2011 3:01 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 11/2/2011 3:06 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 11/2/2011 10:58 AM, BGB wrote: >>>> Mono also can't run C++/CLI code last I checked, which sort of screws >>>> over my personal motivation to use it. >>> >>> It should be able to run pure code. Obviously not mixed code. >> >> yes, but banning mixed code sort of breaks C++/CLI's ability to... >> actually work... >> >> even if one compiles the code itself as pure CIL, then Mono rejects it >> due to things like "can't load MSVCR80.DLL" or similar. > > With: > > /clr:pure > > it should not. > > Are you sure that it does not work? > I tested it. the issue is, as soon as one uses and C or C++ runtime stuff, or calls into C land, well, Mono is no longer happy. I found out it didn't work, originally, because I was trying to do it, and Mono wouldn't make it work. >> however, about the only real reason I would have to use it would be >> because "C++/CLI is nifty, since I can straddle the border between C# >> and plain C and C++ code". > > C++ mixed mode is in many ways a technological wonder. > > Fantastic tool for getting managed and native code to > work together. > > But also very platform and compiler specific. > > So I don't think it would have made sense for Java to try > something similar. > it is not that bad or complicated really. my VM also does something similar. however, my VM is also late bound, so the interface would not "pollute" the bytecode in the same way as in an early-bound VM (such as the JVM). a minor issue though is that it requires running a tool (for the target system) to process headers and similar and emit metadata (so that the HLL/VM knows what to glue against...). there are also some special annotations and other things. or such...
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
csiph-web