[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGN

From: Rhys Weatherley
Subject: Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables))
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:03:43 +1000

James Michael DuPont wrote:

> Is the a program that would extract all the function signatures from DOTNET
> dll, can we get all
> the classes and interfaces from mfc that way?
> We could try to start creating a description of the link level interface of
> all the methods
> and functions on the level of the user of MFC.

MFC itself isn't an issue for us.  Programs that compile
to IL (e.g. those written in C#) use Windows Forms for
GUI work.  WF wraps MFC behind the scenes, but it
is a different API.

I believe that the Mono gang are working on their own
version of Windows Forms that wraps GTK+.   And it
is possible that someone may do a Qt port as well
(any volunteers?).

So, building our own MFC-compatible library is not
an issue that DotGNU needs to worry about.

However, there are thousands of classes that MS's
.NET Framework SDK has that ECMA doesn't.  It
is very possible that a C# programmer using VS.NET
will build applications that won't run on ECMA-compliant

Because of the redistributable licensing conditions,
we cannot lift an assembly from the SDK and run it
on top of our engine.  We have to provide our own
implementation.  But then, Free Software philosophy
dictates that we should write our own anyway, because
the original doesn't come with source.

That's why we must work with Mono on the high-level
libraries, so as to build a strong alternative implementation
to the .NET Framework SDK.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]