"Panu Viljamaa" <
[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:
[hidden email]...
> Ian Upright wrote:
>
> > ... We had discussion about this in the past, its only time before a
third-party
> > makes a VM that emulates the Microsoft .NET bytecode. David Simmons
even
> > went as far as saying that it might be a technology he himself may
posess or
> > it may not be a difficult task to support this on any good VM. However,
he
> > also pointed out, that creating all the frameworks that Microsoft is
going
> > to be shipping with Microsoft .NET is going to be a much more monumental
> > task..
>
> I don't get this. You are supposed to be able to use 'any' language
> with the .NET . If the frameworks are there, you should be able to call
> them from Smalltalk, without having to write them yourself. Even going
> to another platform, you should be able to run the libraries already
> created in a .NET language and port them. ? All you need is .NET
> Virtual Machine, right ? Just like Java libraries are mostly written in
> Java, and all you need is the VM.
I think your confusion stems from the way the comment was worded. There are
actually two separate ideas entangled here.
First, is what it would take to build a non Microsoft version of .NET. Which
is what Ian's comment was basically referring to.
The Second, is the question of what is required to change Smalltalk such
that it can be implemented for (some version of) .NET to allow full access
to, and integration with, the frameworks and services of .NET.
-- Dave Simmons [www.qks.com / www.smallscript.com]
"Effectively solving a problem begins with how you express it."
>
> -Panu
>
>
Locked
