Still, that's a far cry from declaring they could not support checked exceptions in the language! Since it's entirely a compiler matter, they absolutely could've chosen to support checked exceptions and wrap runtime constraints in these. I mean, come on, much of the Java runtime stuff calls directly down to the native layer C where there's also no existence of checked exceptions. So sorry, I can't possibly see how anyone could buy your explanation.
On Mar 24, 8:32 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could you elaborate on that, it goes against all documented interviews > > I've come by over the years? Also, how could there be a backwards > > compatibility issue on a new runtime and language? > > .net was new but it still had to deal (interoperate) with a huge legacy, an > in particular 1) COM and 2) C++. > > After solving the universal binary problem with COM, Microsoft wanted to > extend the same universality to languages, so IL came into the picture. Back > then, they still had plans to create at least a backend that could > accomodate C++, i.e. a C++ compiler that would generate IL code and be able > to run on the .net platform. In the end, they decided to simply create a > brand new language instead (C#) but the necessity to interoperate with old > generation COM based languages remained, and neither of these languages > supported checked exceptions (including VB). > > -- > Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
