Re: About .NET
Philip Deets wrote:
> I thing there are over 65 programming
> languages that can create .NET applications.
And oddly enough, they all look exactly like C#. That is, all .NET languages
tend to have the same datatypes, control structures, and so on. The .NET
framework works well with compiled languages, but rather poorly with
interpreted languages that have dynamic datatypes.
There are two approaches you can take with .NET: compile to the .NET
intermediate language, or create an interpreter that runs under .NET.
In the first scenario (compile to .NET), you have the advantage of the
language being able to run as a "first class citizen" and having full access
to the .NET library. That's sort of the point of .NET: all languages get
equal access to the same libraries, so they are equally powerful.
In the second (create an interpreter), you end up with a language that runs
under .NET, but doesn't necessarily have any of the advantages of .NET, other
than running under .NET.
I don't see any reason why Euphoria wouldn't be able to work under either
scenario.
-- David Cuny
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|