Re: About .NET
Jonas Temple wrote:
> I just took a quick glance at the IL that all .NET languages translate
> into. I don't think it would be difficult to come up with a program
> that would translate a Euphoria program into IL. However, here's some
> things to consider:
>
> 1. It would force us to switch from our favorite Windows API library
> to a standard coding for using .NET services. The "standard" could be
> anything we want but it would have to be agreed upon. Trying to come up
> with a program that would translate all the available Windows API
> libraries would be a nightmare. This doesn't rule out someone coming up
> with, for example, a win32lib.ew file that would use the Euphoria.NET
> coding standard. This would also apply to any other user contributed
> library.
> 2. Euphoria.NET would be a Windows only variant, moving away from the
> cross-platform compatability (but of course, isn't this what MS wants?).
> 3. Euphoria.NET programs would run slower than Euphoria programs coded
> to the API.
>
> I also ran a dependency walker against one of the .NET windows form
> .dlls and not to my surprise, the dll was linked to comctl32.dll,
> kernel32.dll, advapi32.dll, gdi32.dll, user32.dll, comdlg32.dll, etc.
> So it would seem that .NET is similar in concept to OWL and MFC in that
> it tries to shield the programmer from the Windows API and throws in some
> additional services to boot. The reality is that .NET is still based on
> the traditional Windows API so seemingly there's no worry that MS might
> one day throw away the APIs.
>
> My feeling is that we can continue to code Windows Euphoria programs
> for quite some time and they should run fine when MS moves to a ".NET
> only" programming environment. Unless I've misinterpreted the signs, I
> can't really see any compelling reason to go to all the trouble of
> creating Euphoria.NET.
Sure, Euphoria as it is right now won't stop working. Just like C and C++ and
other languages. The API will still be available for backward compatibility, but
.NET is the future of Windows programming. The Windows.Forms-part of the
.NET-framework is currently "just a wrapper" on top of the Windows API, but .NET
is so much more.
You say that "there's no worry that MS might one day throw away the APIs". I
have bad news for you: the next major version of Windows (LongHorn) is built on
the .NET Framework. LongHorn is .NET. .NET is the core of LongHorn. Managed
.NET-applications (IL) will run faster than native applications that call the
API-functions, which will probably still be there for backward compatibility.
You say: "Euphoria.NET would be a Windows only variant, moving away from the
cross-platform compatability (but of course, isn't this what MS wants?)."
Isn't calling the APIs kind of Windows-only?
Besides, Euphoria.NET is not meant to replace Euphoria, just like C# is not
meant to replace C or C++.
One more point: .NET is not 100% Windows-only. There are alternatives being
built for Linux (http://www.mono-project.com). .NET is not only for building
Windows-applications: most of the .NET-applications being built right now are
ASP.NET-applications: server applications, web services, interactive websites,
etc...
--
tommy online: http://users.pandora.be/tommycarlier
Euphoria Message Board: http://uboard.proboards32.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
