Re: .NET compiler

Stephen Horne <sh006d3592@blueyonder.co.uk>
Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:36:22 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
.NET compiler anders43@gmail.com (ajk) (2008-09-15)
.NET compiler felipeangriman@gmail.com (Felipe Angriman) (2008-09-16)
Re: .NET compiler sh006d3592@blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen Horne) (2008-09-16)
Re: .NET compiler ang.usenet@gmail.com (Aaron Gray) (2008-09-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Stephen Horne <sh006d3592@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:36:22 +0100
Organization: virginmedia.com
References: 08-09-070
Keywords: code
Posted-Date: 17 Sep 2008 07:58:01 EDT

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:14:02 -0700 (PDT), ajk <anders43@gmail.com>
wrote:


>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?


One of the major features of .NET is supposed to be interoperability
between languages. This gives a third option - mix and match. Choose
an existing .NET HLL that provides a reasonable target model for your
core language features (probably C#, but the new Objective CAML based
F# may well be worth a serious look), and generate IL (or some other
..NET language) for any features that don't easily fit.


My guess is that you'll rarely need IL - but "need" is of course only
one reason for using it.


Post a followup to this message

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