From: Patrick Hartling (patrick_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-13 09:02:24
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 07:32, Edward Diener wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
> >> Surprised you didn't try to port it to MC++. It might have been easier.
> > But much less portable. With C#, people at least have a few
> > compiler and runtime options. Beyond that, C#-based
> > assemblies can actually be used on multiple platforms unlike
> > those compiled from MC++.
> This is not true. MC++ is just as portable as C#. It is a .NET CLS compliant
> language. Every .NET CLS compliant language can produce assemblies which can
> be used by any other CLS compliant .NET language in a .NET environment.
Perhaps I spoke out of turn. I was using MC++ to make a bridge between
the CLI and native C++ code. Based on my experience and on information
received from the Mono developers, this type of assembly contains a
small amount of x86 native code that calls Win32 functions. IIRC, it is
used for initialization purposes. Being able to use this assembly on
Linux or other platforms where Mono is available requires some form of
Win32 emulation. I had thought that Jonathan would have used a similar
route to reduce the amount of coding overhead for a .NET-aware BGL. A
pure Managed C++ BGL would not include the native code, as I understand
I should also note that my experience comes from roughly one year ago
using Visual C++ 7.0. I have not tried to compile my Managed C++ code
with VC++ 7.1. I just assumed it produced similar results.
-- Patrick L. Hartling | Research Assistant, VRAC patrick_at_[hidden] | 2274 Howe Hall Room 2624 http://www.137.org/patrick/ | http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ PGP: http://wwwkeys.gpg.cz:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEBF86398
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk