[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers? (wasRe:User

From: Timothy Rue
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers? (wasRe:User Interfaces)
Date: 16 Jul 2002 13:19:28 -0500

On 15-Jul-02 10:34:08 Norbert Bollow <address@hidden> wrote:
 NB> Timothy Rue <address@hidden> wrote:

>> On 11-Jul-02 08:54:55 David Bradley <address@hidden> wrote:
>>  DB> BioChem333 wrote:
>>  DB> I'm not against adding extensions, but it appears to be a
>>  concern DB> of  many. I think people can make informed decisions
>>  on whether DB> to use them  or not. We've been doing it for ages
>>  in C and C++.
>>  DB> David Bradley
>> Make it a non issue by making it possble for more people to more
>> easily make up their own custom (perhaps industry and field
>> specific) extensions.

 NB> Timothy,
 NB>   How do you propose to prevent this from degenerating into an
 NB> interoperability + porting nightmare?

 NB> Greetings, Norbert.


I don't think it will be a problem. Or to be clear, in making it easier
for others to make up their own extensions with intent on allowing others
to use such extensions, then there would be guidelines to follow to enable
solving/preventing any problems of such nature before such problems could
be created.

Maybe I don't understand, but what I know is that if we cannot solve
problems we create then lets' not create them, but instead find another
way to do, reach the goal?

As an online product dotgnu is, resources are to be available online, such
as extensions.

Are extensions to be hardware or platform OS dependant? Or are extensions
made up of simpler elements already existing and therefore can exist in a
common hardware/OS independant format? Making things "Common" is what CLI,
CTS, CIL is all about. And this just means it's a matter of making such
extensions accessible in a common but organized manner.

Considering that what ever language you are using thru CLI, it is getting
converted/translated into CIL against CTS.

Now maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that CTS and CIL are pretty much
the general sum of programing vocabulary/concepts and use/application in
common format.

The language the programmer uses, becomes a matter of convience. And this
also means that new programming languages or even methods can be developed
much more easily so long as a CLI translator is made for it/them.

And extensions here are what? expanded programming vocabulary/concepts?

1+1+1+1=4 and 2x2=4 but multiplication when broken down is just
simpler arithmetic. And so it is with programming concepts, in that it all
gets translated down into simpler and common elements. Extensions are just
a way of simplifying useage of a combination of simple elements.

It seems to me that the system dependant part needed to use the CLI
generated CIL bytecode is the VES. It's the its the platform dependant
VES engines that enables cross platform (write once run anywhere)
applications to be made. And the VES comes after the CLI.

I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding the who point of CLI?

In the mean time there seems to be more immediate problems, like where are
the up to date archives of dotgnu lists? Now that can be a problems if
resources are not available. :)

Timothy Rue
Email @ mailto:address@hidden
Web @

reply via email to

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