Hi Miguel, I agree that it made sense for Microsoft to use the DLL "vessel" format. I just don't see why they needed to keep the "DLL" file extension. Nothing about windows prevents DLLs from having different file extensions and as I noted, many DLLs on windows do actually use different file extensions :-).
I'm still campaigning for .DNA for libraries and .RNA for modules. Not sure what the extension for executables should be yet :-). ^Tum > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:mono-list- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Miguel de Icaza > Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 8:08 a.m. > To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen > Cc: 'juan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ? > > Hello, > > > I'll never understand why Microsoft used the .DLL extension. Even > > pre-dotnet dlls didn't always use .DLL (e.g. ActiveX controls use .OCX > > and control panel applets used .CPL). > > In .NET you can mix managed and unmanaged code into the same assembly > (Managed C++ can do this for example). So you can actually have mixed > assemblies, so it makes sense to reuse the "vesel" format. > _______________________________________________ > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
