grauzone wrote: >> and the .net cil is a genious idea. The most succefull compilers are >> the ones that recognize that there is multiple languages, multiple >> archictectures and that there should be something in the middle. CIL >> just leaves it in the middle code until the last minute. MS may not do >> the best operating systems but the whole .net thing is very good in my > > And what exactly is good about byte code? > > It's portable? My D code is portable too. Sure, it requires > recompilation, but it doesn't need a clusterfuck-VM just for running it.
There's a few points here: 1. Users don't like compiling software. Hell, *I* don't like having to compile software since it invariably doesn't work first go, even when the build instructions are correct (they often aren't.) 2. A very large number of Windows developers write closed-source software. The idea of having customers obtain and compile their software scares the pants off of them. If it didn't, they wouldn't invest so much money in obfuscators. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but... MS didn't design .NET to make you happy. *ducks* -- Daniel
