[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?
From: |
Rhys Weatherley |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this? |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Nov 2001 11:30:36 +1000 |
Jens Müller wrote:
> And of course, it should be multi-paradigm. When language
> interoperabilty means that you have to program in every language as
> you do in C, then it is not a good thing.
The CLR already has some features that support
multi-paradigm programming. Logic and functional
languages already run on the platform, and can
interface with the regular imperative languages.
Have a look at the University of Melbourne's
Mercury system, which I'm currently working on
getting to work with Portable.NET:
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/
Cheers,
Rhys.
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Rhys Weatherley, 2001/11/01
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Bill Lance, 2001/11/03
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Rhys Weatherley, 2001/11/03
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Bill Lance, 2001/11/03
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Jens Müller, 2001/11/03
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?,
Rhys Weatherley <=
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Jens Müller, 2001/11/03
- [DotGNU]Multi-paradigm programming, Rhys Weatherley, 2001/11/03
- RE: [DotGNU]Multi-paradigm programming, Martin Coxall, 2001/11/05
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Rhys Weatherley, 2001/11/03
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Bill Lance, 2001/11/04
- RE: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Martin Coxall, 2001/11/05
- Re: [DotGNU]What .NET is this?, Rhys Weatherley, 2001/11/05