[REBOL] .net and rebol
From: rishi::picostar::com at: 10-Sep-2000 0:03
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C01ABA.7C4C7A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not a microsoft fan at all, but there .net stuff is the most interesting thing i
have ever seen this company do. Their c# language is actually pretty good. The thing
that is really interesting to me about this .net stuff is that it is programming language
independent. You can use C++, javascript, visual basic, C# and, according to the articles,
any programming language you are comfortable with. It allows you to mix and match different
languages. Anyway, I was wondering if Rebol could work with this .net stuff. I rememeber
it being mentioned that rebol cannot be compiled, but microsoft has apparently figured
out some way to compile all interepreted or non-interpreted languages to this "IL" code.
So does this mean it is possible to compile rebol? Will rebol/command for windows work
with this .net infrastructure. What is also interesting to me is that this .net stuff
is supposidly portable to other platforms.
here is an interview with architech of .net platform where he discusses things like programming
language independence:
http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html
here is an interesting excerpt from that interview (click on url above to read full interview):
>>begin excerpt
Osborn:
Another area of confusion, I think, is understanding where C# stops and the common runtime
begins. What's the innovation in the C# language itself versus what it gets from the
common runtime library?
Hejlsberg:
Well, I think some of this confusion comes from the fact that when people talk about
Java, they don't really know which is the language and which is the runtime. Some of
this confusion arises when people talk about Java. Which is the language and which is
the runtime? What do people mean when they say Java? Do they mean Java, the language,
Java, the syntax, or do they mean Java, the platform? People lump these different aspects
together. We've taken an approach that says we want to be a multilingual platform. We're
going to build a platform that actually allows you to implement multiple programming
languages and also have them share a common set of APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).
Let's face it, some people like to program in COBOL, some people like to program in Basic,
some like C++, and some will like C#, I hope. But we're not trying to tell you to forget
everything you ever did. We're not saying, "Now that there's only one language, there
shall be no further innovations in this race." We're saying that our industry advances
by its flexibility. How did Java come about? It came about because there were programming
languages before it and there will be programming languages after it. We want to build
a platform where your preference for one language over another doesn't negate the whole
value proposition. We want to create a platform where there can be innovation. Who's
helping COBOL programmers today? Who's taking them to the Web? Only on the .NET platform
can you embed Fujitsu COBOL in an ASP page. I mean it's truly revolutionary.
Osborn:
Given the availability of multiple languages for the .NET platform, why would you choose
C# over Visual Basic, C++, or even COBOL? What is it that makes C# so compelling?
Hejlsberg:
First of all, with C# we were able to start with a clean sheet of paper, so to speak.
We did not have any backward compatibility requirements, and that certainly made things
simpler. And not just from an implementation standpoint, but also from a usage standpoint.
For example, we only have one kind of class in C#, and it is always garbage-collected.
Managed C++, on the other hand, has two because it has to preserve the non-garbage collected
style of programming. So, C# simply has fewer concepts you have to understand.
Language is a funny thing: It's a matter of taste. Language is almost a religious thing,
and it's a lifestyle choice for programmers. I mean, we realize that we can't walk out
and say, "Here's a platform where you have one language base." Even if you could do everything
in that platform with one language, some people may not like its syntax; they might like
curly braces instead or some other block delimiter. That's what they're familiar with.
That's what makes them feel at home and productive and enabled. And so our approach with
C# has simply been to offer an alternative to C++ programmers who find that language
too complicated and to Java programmers who miss certain features of C and C++ that were
lost in the translation. We looked for ways to simplify C++ and then put the result on
a multilingual platform that provides greater interoperability, and that gives you all
of these component concepts, and so forth.
Goodhew:
One of the interesting things that came out of our developer tracking study is that over
60 percent of all developers in the professional developer market use two or more languages
to build their applications. And what that tells us, especially when we ask which tools
programmers use, is that there isn't going to be one object-oriented programming language
which is the end all and be all language that everyone will use. As Anders said earlier,
people will want certain syntaxes for what they're doing or how they feel. It's a personal
choice. And that's what the whole .NET platform is about, providing developers with a
choice of languages in which to implement. I think we've done a pretty good job. You
can basically do the same tasks in Visual Basic, .NET, and C#. Visual Basic is still
viewed as more accessible to programmers. C# has more headroom and more power than VB
does.
Osborn:
Meaning that you can accomplish more with fewer statements in C#?
Hejlsberg:
Well, meaning you have more power through the provision for unsafe code.
Osborn:
So you can't write unsafe code in VB?
Hejlsberg:
No, you cannot.
Goodhew:
But basically, both languages can do the same thing. That's a fundamental change from
where we were with Visual Studio 6. If you wanted to build a multi-threaded MTS object
using Visual Studio 6.0 and you were a VB programmer, you couldn't. You'd have to use
C++. Now, with the .NET framework, you can use whichever language you want.
Hejlsberg:
It's the thing I talked about in my general session talk: The unification of programming
models, which the .NET framework offers. In the evolution of languages and frameworks,
we always seemed to end up marrying a programming language to a particular API and a
particular form of programming. VB was about rapid application development and forms,
MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes) was about sub-classing, and ASP was about putting
stuff in web pages. In each case, your choice of programming model always dictated your
choice of programming language and your choice of available APIs. It added to your workload
the burden of learning new languages and APIs every time you switched frameworks. We
have really tried to unify all of that. We provide one API, one supporting visual design
tool, and we give you the flexibility to choose whichever language works for you.
Osborn:
I'm wondering what this does to the use of scripting languages such as VBScript and JScript?
Hejlsberg:
One of the wonderful things the .NET framework has done for scripting languages is to
make them compiled. Look at ASP+. Now, you're actually running real compiled code in
your pages; it's not late-bound, dispatch look-ups where you don't see a runtime error
until the user hits the page. ASP+ developers can use the full power of Visual Basic
.NET instead of VBScript. And for the first time, they have the ability to use Perl,
Python, and other popular languages if they so choose.
Petrusha:
Server-side JavaScript is now compiled?
Hejlsberg:
Yes, that's right.
Goodhew:
The .NET framework allows scripting languages to be used as full-featured languages because
they now have access to a true programming framework and to the same base-class APIs.
You should look at what the guys who are doing the JScript implementation have accomplished.
[Editors Note: JScript is the Microsoft implementation of the ECMA 262 language specification
(ECMAScript Edition 3). With only a few minor exceptions (to maintain backward compatibility),
JScript is a full implementation of the ECMA standard.] So the .NET platform provides
a common language framework, which is a huge benefit to script writers....
...more at url above...
<< end excerpt
here is an article on the c# language:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/csharp/csharp.asp
Rishi
------=_NextPart_000_00CA_01C01ABA.7C4C7A80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not a microsoft fan at all, but there .net
stuff is the most interesting thing i have ever seen this company do. Their c#
language is actually pretty good. The thing that is really interesting to me
about this .net stuff is that it is programming language independent. You can
use C++, javascript, visual basic, C# and, according to the articles, any
programming language you are comfortable with. It allows you to mix and match
different languages. Anyway, I was wondering if Rebol could work with this .net
stuff. I rememeber it being mentioned that rebol cannot be compiled, but
microsoft has apparently figured out some way to compile all interepreted or
non-interpreted languages to this "IL" code. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So does this mean it is possible to compile rebol?
Will rebol/command for windows work with this .net infrastructure. What is also
interesting to me is that this .net stuff is supposidly portable to other
platforms.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>here is an interview with architech of .net
platform where he discusses things like programming language
independence:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html">http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>here is an interesting excerpt from that interview
(click on url above to read full interview):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>>begin excerpt</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DT><B>Osborn</B>:
<DD>Another area of confusion, I think, is understanding where C# stops and the
common runtime begins. What's the innovation in the C# language itself versus
what it gets from the common runtime library?
<P></P>
<DT><B>Hejlsberg</B>:
<DD>Well, I think some of this confusion comes from the fact that when people
talk about Java, they don't really know which is the language and which is the
runtime. Some of this confusion arises when people talk about Java. Which is the
language and which is the runtime? What do people mean when they say Java? Do
they mean Java, the language, Java, the syntax, or do they mean Java, the
platform? People lump these different aspects together. We've taken an approach
that says we want to be a multilingual platform. We're going to build a platform
that actually allows you to implement multiple programming languages and also
have them share a common set of APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). Let's
face it, some people like to program in COBOL, some people like to program in
Basic, some like C++, and some will like C#, I hope. But we're not trying to
tell you to forget everything you ever did. We're not saying, "Now that there's
only one language, there shall be no further innovations in this race." We're
saying that our industry advances by its flexibility. How did Java come about?
It came about because there were programming languages before it and there will
be programming languages after it. We want to build a platform where your
preference for one language over another doesn't negate the whole value
proposition. We want to create a platform where there can be innovation. Who's
helping COBOL programmers today? Who's taking them to the Web? Only on the .NET
platform can you embed Fujitsu COBOL in an ASP page. I mean it's truly
revolutionary.
<P></P>
<DT><B>Osborn</B>:
<DD>Given the availability of multiple languages for the .NET platform, why
would you choose C# over Visual Basic, C++, or even COBOL? What is it that makes
C# so compelling?
<P></P>
<DT><B>Hejlsberg</B>:
<DD>First of all, with C# we were able to start with a clean sheet of paper, so
to speak. We did not have any backward compatibility requirements, and that
certainly made things simpler. And not just from an implementation standpoint,
but also from a usage standpoint. For example, we only have one kind of class in
C#, and it is always garbage-collected. Managed C++, on the other hand, has two
because it has to preserve the non-garbage collected style of programming. So,
C# simply has fewer concepts you have to understand.
<P>Language is a funny thing: It's a matter of taste. Language is almost a
religious thing, and it's a lifestyle choice for programmers. I mean, we realize
that we can't walk out and say, "Here's a platform where you have one language
base." Even if you could do everything in that platform with one language, some
people may not like its syntax; they might like curly braces instead or some
other block delimiter. That's what they're familiar with. That's what makes them
feel at home and productive and enabled. And so our approach with C# has simply
been to offer an alternative to C++ programmers who find that language too
complicated and to Java programmers who miss certain features of C and C++ that
were lost in the translation. We looked for ways to simplify C++ and then put
the result on a multilingual platform that provides greater interoperability,
and that gives you all of these component concepts, and so forth.
<P></P>
<DT><B>Goodhew</B>:
<DD>One of the interesting things that came out of our developer tracking study
is that over 60 percent of all developers in the professional developer market
use two or more languages to build their applications. And what that tells us,
especially when we ask which tools programmers use, is that there isn't going to
be one object-oriented programming language which is the end all and be all
language that everyone will use. As Anders said earlier, people will want
certain syntaxes for what they're doing or how they feel. It's a personal
choice. And that's what the whole .NET platform is about, providing developers
with a choice of languages in which to implement. I think we've done a pretty
good job. You can basically do the same tasks in Visual Basic, .NET, and C#.
Visual Basic is still viewed as more accessible to programmers. C# has more
headroom and more power than VB does.
<P></P>
<DT><B>Osborn</B>:
<DD>Meaning that you can accomplish more with fewer statements in C#?
<P></P>
<DT><B>Hejlsberg</B>:
<DD>Well, meaning you have more power through the provision for unsafe code.
<P></P>
<DT><B>Osborn</B>:
<DD>So you can't write unsafe code in VB?
<P></P>
<DT><B>Hejlsberg</B>:
<DD>No, you cannot.
<P></P>
<DT><B>Goodhew</B>:
<DD>But basically, both languages can do the s
