Hey David, thanks for the link. It was amazing... I have some doubt about the speed though. To my understanding, it's JIT compiling bytecode to IL, which in return is JIT compiled to machine code. Doesn't that affect runtime?
Cheers, Ali Shafai -----Original Message----- From: David Smiley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 4:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for ports? Are you referring to the core Java libraries? GNU Classpath is an open implementation of them. And more recently, the OpenJDK has released it unencumbered. Here is the CLR based Java solution I was thinking of: http://www.ikvm.net/index.html > As I'm no Java programmer, I might be wrong, but I think the port is needed > because of the underlying class libraries (BCL). > > Cheers, > Ali Shafai > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Smiley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 4:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for ports? > > Hi; I stumbled across Lucene.Net. I'm a Java developer, not a C#/.Net dev. > I thought there is an option or two for Java programs to run on Microsoft's > cool Common-Language-Runtime. If so, it seems to me quite odd that > Lucene.Net would need to be ported to another programming language. Part of > the beauty of the CLR is that you don't need to do these sorts of things. > Because it's a common runtime and different languages can interoperate > (within reason). Even though whatever Java implementation for the CLR isn't > a perfect replica of Sun's implementation and would necessitate some changes > to Lucene, it's hard for me to believe that doing a language port would make > more sense than working on those tweaks. Please fill me in on the > rationale. You might want to put the response in a FAQ somewhere. The > website doesn't have one. > > Thanks. > > ~ David Smiley >
