I think that DLL extension makes some sense, because "Dynamically Linked Library" seems to explain the file contents pretty well.
It is way better than SO - "Shared Object" - on Unix/Linux, because the term "Object" has a totally different meaning in CLI world. .DNA can be confusing because the acronym is already established (remember the human genome project?). Besides, it refers to a trademarked technology (Dot Net) not the CLI which is a standard. Can you explain your idea about RNA? What's wrong with *.netmodule? I think MS could make it all consistent by renaming *.dll to *.assembly (not the *.asm because it is a assembly-language source code). I think that *.exe's should remain intact and there should be either wrappers that remove extensions or binfmt_misc to facilitate their use under Linux. Just my 0.02 PLN Jarek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thong (Tum) Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Miguel de Icaza'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'juan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:18 AM Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ? > 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 > _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
