"We consider Mono 1.1.9 stable enough to recommend it for all users. Those upgrading from the 1.0.x series should note that these notes only contain the differences between 1.1.8 and 1.1.9."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
As with C, C++, Pascal, Basic, ObjC, Scheme and ..
They all compile down to machine instructions, so they are completely useless... So the real language is assembler.
Yer, and none of those languages claim 100% compatibility with each other in any way shape or form, therefore they are different, therefore they are useful for doing different things. Not so with .Net languages. You have to conform to the CLS and run within the CLR for it to be of any use whatsoever (if not, what's the point of running in a VM or having any sort of environment?). What you've got with .Net, and when you try to port a language to .Net, is a square peg in a square hole mentality. If your language is just a little bit rectangular (which might actually make your language useful) then it simply won't fit in. Conform to the .Net environment and you lose any of that originality.
That's been the consistent point here.
O and IL compiles down to machine instructions.
Yer, in a straight jacket. It's the same IL code and the same machine instructions coming down. Give me a break.
Member since:2005-07-07
Um segedunum, just about every programming language has already been, or is in the process of being ported to .NET/Mono. From Python (IronPython), Pascal, Lisp, C++, PHP, all sorts of languages that you see in non-VM environments as well. Most of these (especially IronPython and PHP), are hardly doing any bending whatsoever to conform to the .NET runtime.
So, uh, that kind of refutes everything you've been saying I guess is what I'm saying.
You don't even seem to understand the advantage of using programming languages over keying in ones and zeros.
Of course this is all assuming you're not just intentionally being an ignorant troll. Bad assumption?
Member since:Well, actually IronPython is pretty good example that all .NET languages aren't just the same methods with different syntax. The author of IronPython was making the same sort of argumentation that you do now, when he was going to write an article about how stuff like dynamic typing couldn't be done in the CLR, until he found out that actually wasn't the case. That's when he started coding IronPython.
Member since:
"Err, I've just described to you why having different languages targetted to .Net, IL and the CLR are essentially pointless. Why? Because in then end they all compile to the same thing!"
As with C, C++, Pascal, Basic, ObjC, Scheme and ..
They all compile down to machine instructions, so they are completely useless... So the real language is assembler.
O and IL compiles down to machine instructions.