Re: UNCOL = Uncool?

"Pred." <predictor@my-deja.com>
26 Oct 2000 02:44:21 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? peteg@cse.unsw.edu.au (Peter Gammie) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu (Daniel C. Wang) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-23)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? predictor@my-deja.com (Pred.) (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? vbdis@aol.com (2000-10-26)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-10-31)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2000-10-31)
Re: UNCOL = Uncool? vbdis@aol.com (2000-11-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Pred." <predictor@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Oct 2000 02:44:21 -0400
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
References: 00-10-139 00-10-173 00-10-178
Keywords: UNCOL

    fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
> vbdis@aol.com (VBDis) writes:
>[...]
>The difficulty
> of the task is exacerbated by the fact that it is a moving target.


Or more precise: moving sources and moving targets ;-)


I agree that the .NET will stay Windows-spesific mainly for political
and commercial reasons and, yes, there are technical difficulties as
well...


- Pred

Post a followup to this message

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