|.NET compiler email@example.com (ajk) (2008-09-15)|
|.NET compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (Felipe Angriman) (2008-09-16)|
|Re: .NET compiler email@example.com (Stephen Horne) (2008-09-16)|
|Re: .NET compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (Aaron Gray) (2008-09-18)|
|From:||"Aaron Gray" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:42:35 +0100|
|Posted-Date:||18 Sep 2008 18:09:13 EDT|
"ajk" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com...
> If I was contemplating doing a .NET compiler for a language, would it
> be better to generate ILAsm or some other higher-level .NET language?
> By creating ILAsm there is more control but I suppose one would have
> to put more effort in optimisation. Round-tripping would also work.
> Any other benefits of doing ILAsm compared to say C# and then
> compiling C# using the std compiler?
If your language is dynamic you may well want to consder the DLR as
developed with Iron Ruby and Iron Python.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.