From: Ferdinand Prantl (ferdinand.prantl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-13 12:46:45
> From: Edward Diener [mailto:eddielee_at_[hidden]]
> 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.
Patrick means source code portability; even if the bytecode
is standardized, there is only one product (currently), which
produces it from managed C++ - MS Visual Studio. Freely
available solutions (MS .NET Framework, mono and pnet)
have (currently) limited support for anything else than C#.
There may be some changes in the managed support in the
Microsoft C++ in Whidbey, whereas one can rely on C#.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk