Without a common "Base Class Library", a CLR isn't all that helpful. Java will compile fine to IL, but a given Java app is going to need whatever library it uses compiled to IL as well.
This is feasible, but leaves you using Java specific classes in an otherwise .NET application. As crappy as the .NET BCL is, I'd much prefer a .NET application that makes use of it over one that doesn't. -Kurt -----Original Message----- From: Smiley, David W. (DSMILEY) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for ports? Importance: Low A disappointing conclusion one could draw from all the reactions to my question is that the usefulness of a common-language-runtime is flawed and pointless. Personally, I'm not willing to accept that. Do you guys believe that or is Lucene atypical or...? ~ David
