Re: compiler writing as a career?

Sander Vesik wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@indiegamedesign.com> wrote:
>> Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>>>
>>> Another advantage of C# for Microsoft, there is no such thing like a
>>> standard for that.
>>
>> What are you talking about? C# is been an ISO standard for over a
>> year.
>>
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=36768&ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=
>
> But it very much depends on where you draw the line between the
> language and its standard library ending and extensions
> beginning. With a 'single major vendor' situation, its not clear where
> the proper place is and certainly many are using a lot larger part
> than the standard covers as the minimal subset that defines the
> language and its runtime.


While I was still vaguely interested in C#, I looked at what parts of
the library were standard and which weren't. The core things you'd
expect to be standard, like lists and so forth, were standard. I'm
not worried about core C# libraries being standard. It's as you
expand to a very big, inclusive notion of libraries that one gets the
problem you describe. If you were going to write your own code from
scratch you'd be fine. If you wanted to leverage every obscure thing
in existence, you wouldn't be.


That was true for C++ for quite awhile as well, and arguably still is if
you're stuck with older compilers. Yet we don't worry about C++ being
monopolized.


I think there's a tendency to confuse C# standard libraries for .NET
libraries.


--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

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