I think this is a fair question. I am not sure the original poster deserved so much grief.
I have certainly compiled C programs from source that were written more than five or six years ago. It does not seem implausible that I might try to compile the original posters code a decade from now and that I might find that 'gmcs' is indeed not available at that time. The best current solution does seem to be to use a macro like CSC in the build script and set it to 'gmcs' or 'dmcs' or whatever your code requires. At least then, when it someday fails to build, it will likely be as simple as changing a single letter in the build script to make it build again. Many people would love to write build scripts that do not fail in this way however. In that case, it might make sense to see if 'gmcs' is available and, if it is not, to try 'whatever the latest C# compiler is' instead. You could also check to make sure that the answer was not 'mcs' I suppose. That would future proof the process. As was noted on this thread, the C# compilers seem to have pretty good backwards compatibility even though they have poor forward compatibility. I saw recently the Mono VB compiler author proudly explain that his compiler would not have any of the multiple names issues that the C# compiler has. Apparently, he sees it as a problem. It seems pretty standard to have a fixed compiler name and then test for system capabilities in the build script rather than to hard-wire in a specific compiler name that implies a bunch of capabilities. I am not really complaining about the C# situation in Mono but I see no reason to be grumpy at those who wonder if there is another way. -- View this message in context: http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Standard-name-for-mcs-tp2270120p2270398.html Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list