1. RE: Compiler Source Code
Derek Parnell wrote:
> I downloaded the source code for Microsoft's C#
> compiler/linker/assembler/tools/ etc.. (120+MB) but worth it as it is
> a
> very useful resource on how to write compilers. Its nearly all in C++.
>
> There is enough information here to write a native Euphoria.NET
> compiler!
> And that would run on Windows/Linux/OS X/FreeBSD platforms.
Is the source included in the .net framework?
I downloaded that last night but haven't installed it yet as it
suggested I update my MDAC to 2.7 and install MS Internet Information
Services.
I never realised that the C# command line compiler came with the .net
framework for free.
I have been given 2 and a bit weeks to learn C# and Visual Studio.NET!
Just at a guess I think I'm in a bit of trouble!
First impressions seem to indicate C# is a much simplier beast to tame
than C++ ... maybe Microsoft have seen Euphoria and want to compete
with the simple syntax and small learning curve of Euphoria! :)
Ray Smith
http://rays-web.com
2. RE: Compiler Source Code
Derek Parnell wrote:
> I downloaded the source code for Microsoft's C#
> compiler/linker/assembler/tools/ etc.. (120+MB) but worth it as it is
> a
> very useful resource on how to write compilers. Its nearly all in C++.
>
> There is enough information here to write a native Euphoria.NET
> compiler!
> And that would run on Windows/Linux/OS X/FreeBSD platforms.
>
>
> ---------------
> cheers,
Derek:
I have read that .NET is not as popular as MS thought it
would be. I do not do programming for a living so maybe
you have a different opinion. How often do you use it and
how wide is it used ? First MS said it was COM, the DCOM,
now it's .NET. How does a pro. programmer keep up with all
all of those changes ?
Bernie
