Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL

Lieven Marchand <mal@bewoner.dma.be>
10 Oct 2000 00:54:06 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Microsoft .NET and its IL go7mog@microsoft.hotmail.com (gothmog) (2000-10-08)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL andy@silverbrook.com.au (2000-10-10)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL mal@bewoner.dma.be (Lieven Marchand) (2000-10-10)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL vbdis@aol.com (2000-10-10)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-10-12)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL ruff@mcst.ru (Andrey S. Bokhanko) (2000-10-12)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL peter@razorsoft.com (Peter Drayton) (2000-10-15)
Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL lyman.taylor@mindspring.com.no.spam (Lyman Taylor) (2000-10-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Lieven Marchand <mal@bewoner.dma.be>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 10 Oct 2000 00:54:06 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 00-10-048
Keywords: UNCOL

"gothmog" <go7mog@microsoft.hotmail.com> writes:


> Isn't this the holy grail that UNCOL failed in achieving?
>
> A unified IDE with plug-in languagues, compiling to a common IL, in
> turn compiled to machine code before running. A common framework
> library, that can be extended using any IL compatible language. Very
> ambitious claims. Any thoughts on its success or failure?


Also, the IL doesn't aim to be all that general. Already one of the
languages targeted, Eiffel, had to have some details
w.r.t. inheritance changed to fit in, resulting in a language called
Eiffel#. Details are on www.eiffel.com. And the object system of
Eiffel is relatively mainstream. I'd like to see attempts to
accomodate really different OO systems as CLOS or Cecil. Or prototype
based ones as Self.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.