[Top][All Lists]

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

[DotGNU]Re: DotGNU -- The Book ? (was: Some thoughts about DotGNU)

From: Peter Minten
Subject: [DotGNU]Re: DotGNU -- The Book ? (was: Some thoughts about DotGNU)
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:18:11 +0200

> > * What's the status of the Jabber classes in pnetlib?
> Well once System.Xml works great and we really can parse XML streams
> with Namespaces ... we can try Jabber.Net ... if that works well
> let's take the next step folks ..

I don't quite know the complete status of System.Xml (I haven't hacked
on it for a long time), but maybe it would be a better idea (just a
suggestion :-) to put the Jabber.Net classes into DotGNU-libs. The
Jabber classes could then use the libxml# code instead of System.Xml
(libxml# is probably faster and easier to handle than System.Xml).
> > * How far are we in the process of making perl/python/ruby
> > IL-compatible?
> As far as (to use my favourite expression) I can throw an elephant ...

> All we have done is in the realm of C# . To make perl/python/ruby really
> IL compatible , we have to produce bytecode compilers for these languages.
> Or produce effective interpreters in C# ....

There is a Ruby interpreter in C#, it called NetRuby

But I feel that making ruby/perl/python bytecoded isn't the way to go,
they derive their power mainly from flexibility and that's mostly lost
when compiling. I don't know about perl/python, but the most logical
(and easy) solution for ruby seems to be interfacing with the existing
standard ruby interpreter.
> > * Can we issue a statement of intention to support perl/python/ruby (to
> > attract some new developers already)?
> How do we support Python/Perl if we do not have an example of how to
> do it ?

Anybody any idea's on how to do this?
> > * What's the status on the execution enviroments?
> A+ .. The IL Spec has been almost covered in the runtime engine .
> With rhys's latest delegate support stuff, we stand on solid ground.

Great, DotGNU is really coming up to speed now (warp 2 reached :-).
> Well I think this might sound strange , but there has been people at the
> meet-a-thon asking for books relating to C#/DotGNU/.NET in general ...

Not at all, I've been searching for those books in the library too, but
all there seems to be is .NET with the usual dependency on MS classes.
> I had written to the authors of "Thinking in C#" but the response has been
> suboptimal ...
> Time we wrote our own GNU manual ...

My thoughts exactly (cross continent telepathy :-).

reply via email to

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