|Microsoft .NET and its IL firstname.lastname@example.org (gothmog) (2000-10-08)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL email@example.com (2000-10-10)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL firstname.lastname@example.org (Lieven Marchand) (2000-10-10)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL email@example.com (2000-10-10)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-10-12)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL email@example.com (Andrey S. Bokhanko) (2000-10-12)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Drayton) (2000-10-15)|
|Re: Microsoft .NET and its IL email@example.com (Lyman Taylor) (2000-10-15)|
|From:||Lieven Marchand <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||10 Oct 2000 00:54:06 -0400|
"gothmog" <email@example.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.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.