> > > That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so > > > that there > > > existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. > > > > > > > The problem with giving it a "native" feel is that it destroys one of > the > > objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and > > "just run it". > > Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: > the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run > fine under mono... > > But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile > into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. > > The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at > the start of file)
But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere. Why would we want to segregate formats? Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and linux). It's true Microsoft is influencing Linux in this way by putting .exe and .dll back into the lives of Linux users, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Perl scripts end with .pl. Java classes end in .class. CLI programs end in .exe or .dll, depending on their executability. My position is, Linux isn't being betrayed or tainted by keeping .exe and .dll's. It's actually consistent because file types typically have unique extensions, and a .so is very different from a .dll. Just my take on things. No endorsements. Andrew Arnott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
