Thread: [Dev-C++] dev -c# ???

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Is anyone interested to port  c# on dev-c++??

On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 09:43, Teodorescu Cristian wrote:
> Is anyone interested to port  c# on dev-c++??
> 

We didn't write the compiler, only the IDE.
And unless Mono gets ported to Win32, I don't think we'll ever support
C#.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev...@li... 
> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf 
> Of Hongli Lai
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:17 PM
> To: Teodorescu Cristian
> Cc: dev...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Dev-C++] dev -c# ???
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 09:43, Teodorescu Cristian wrote:
> > Is anyone interested to port  c# on dev-c++??
> > 
> 
> We didn't write the compiler, only the IDE.
> And unless Mono gets ported to Win32, I don't think we'll ever support
> C#.

You know Hongli, i think this will make you somehow happy. C#
competitor, Borland's Charlotte has Delphi/Pascal like syntax.

If i recall correctly it is something like:

somefunc(x as some_.net_type):some_.net_type
begin

end

I hate in my guts this syntax, but i know it will make you happy.

Ioannis

* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys

On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 12:30, Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> 
> You know Hongli, i think this will make you somehow happy. C#
> competitor, Borland's Charlotte has Delphi/Pascal like syntax.
> 
> If i recall correctly it is something like:
> 
> 
> somefunc(x as some_.net_type):some_.net_type
> begin
> 
> 
> end
> 
> 
> I hate in my guts this syntax, but i know it will make you happy.
> 

I don't know, the namespace.type thing seems stupid to me.

But I'm more worried about wether .NET will stay an open standard. It IS
created by MS, so nobody knows for sure...

Eheheheh. :)  Perhaps to write a C# to C++ convertor? I am sure someone
will do at least this someday.

Ioannis

* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev...@li... 
> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf 
> Of Teodorescu Cristian
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:43 AM
> To: dev...@li...
> Subject: [Dev-C++] dev -c# ???
> 
> 
> Is anyone interested to port  c# on dev-c++??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Dev-cpp-users mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dev-cpp-users
> 

Teodorescu,

> Is anyone interested to port  c# on dev-c++??

While that might be an interesting project, it would pose some problems, not
so much for dev-c++ but for the mingw compiler. C#.NET does not compile to
native code and the .NET framework requires an intermediate code which the
mingw compiler does not produce. The compiler would have to be redesigned to
accomplish one of two things. Either it would have to produce the .NET
intermediate code or it would have to parse and compile C# code and pass it
to the linker to produce executable files. Both approaches, while they might
be very interesting exercises, they would require a tremendous amount of
time and intellectual effort.

Regards,

Bob Wilson

This has been cross posted to the mingw news group.

There is no problem. There is a project under linux to
compile c#. It's name is mono and is places at
www.go-mono.org

Like everything in linux world, a great effort is done
trought many, many people over internet.

So the problem now is make any adjustment to devc for
use the new compiler.

C# is easy, c++ is better.

--- Bob Wilson <bo...@ph...> wrote:
> Teodorescu,
> 
> > Is anyone interested to port  c# on dev-c++??
> 
> While that might be an interesting project, it would
> pose some problems, not
> so much for dev-c++ but for the mingw compiler.
> C#.NET does not compile to
> native code and the .NET framework requires an
> intermediate code which the
> mingw compiler does not produce. The compiler would
> have to be redesigned to
> accomplish one of two things. Either it would have
> to produce the .NET
> intermediate code or it would have to parse and
> compile C# code and pass it
> to the linker to produce executable files. Both
> approaches, while they might
> be very interesting exercises, they would require a
> tremendous amount of
> time and intellectual effort.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 
> This has been cross posted to the mingw news group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Dev-cpp-users mailing list
> Dev...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dev-cpp-users

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Hi,

I hate to step into this at this point, but what the heck...

First off, let me state for the record that my .NET experience is measure in
days (approx. 1 week at this point), and that although I am always open to
solid alternatives, I do find I get more done with MS products than with any
others.  (I've done the Linux/BSD/QNX thing, tried Corel/Sun (StarDivision)
and a handful of other office apps -- I've tried Borland/Metrowerks and a
veritable mountain of free/open development tools, but in the end...).

Now let me say... it's going to be a long post, but hopefully worth a read.
(If you were worried about being long-winded Mac... 8-)

(Oh! Please _reply directly_ to me.  The list doesn't need three months of
C# discourse, unless it becomes a Dev-C++ option...)

I'd like to clarify a few things at this point... I'll give you my read, you
tell me if I'm right/wrong/or just have a differing opinion.

First... enough of this real language crap.  I've been working developing
business-oriented systems for the past 3 years, and I've found VB6 does what
I need to get things done.  It's not considered a "real" language, but it
gets results, and it runs in plenty of real-time, round the clock (even
mission critical) venues.  Want to see some hardcore, top-notch VB
programmers, stop by VISBAS-L/VISBAS-BEGINNERS on peach.ease.lsoft.com.
You'd be surprised what you can do with any language if you take the time to
figure out what you should be doing, and how it can best be done in that
language...

Next, the whole C# syntax.  Yeah, it looks like Java (it also looks like C,
and it's got a hint of Delphi... as I understand it, the lead language
designer was a Delphi designer at Borland before joining MS...).  The point
here, is does it have what is needed to be a useful programming language?

Well, it's got all the standards.  There are decision structures (including
a switch statement, that doesn't require goto, though it's used as to
illustrate what MS are referring to as a jump-statement in the SDK docs...
_break is there_, same as it is in C... if you don't use it, you'll drop
through... same as C/C++/etc.).  There are loop structures.  You can declare
functions (and classes --- with easy property (set/get) function setup).
You can declare variables in a rainbow of types.  There are trendy, and
useful things like namespaces, and self-generating documentation too...
It's a modern programming language folks.  It's really not that ugly, or
tough when it comes right down to it.  It even protects you from mucking
around in memory (pointers are powerful, but dangerous...).  However, if you
really want unmanaged stuff... apparently it's there.

For those worried about platform independence... well, great thing is this.
Write your code in C#, and you can integrate with anybody writting in any
other .NET language (loads of 'em thus far as I understand it... even COBOL
if you like... <shudder>).  According to the Mono project, you can currently
use Mono on Linux, Windows and Solaris.  Even MS were going to port .NET to
FreeBSD if I recall properly...

As to what can be done with C#... well, I'm taking a leap of faith here and
saying you probably can't write drivers with it (or an OS)... at least not
exceedingly easily.  However, compilers... sure.  Will they produce native
executables?  If you like... an executable is just a chunk of binary data
with a specific format, like a lot of other data formats.  There are
variations (ELF, COFF, etc.), right.  If you know the spec., and had the
desire, you could right something to generate an EXE.

Finally, regarding APIs, and virtual machines, etc.  No, none of these are
particularly new.  Does it matter.  OOP has been around since SmallTalk
(late 70s, early 80s)... is it cool today?  Why?  (hint... it's useful).
Besides, if MS decided not to do any of this stuff... they'd be blasted for
being out of touch with what reality; if they change things too radically...
it's too much change.  Why do you think VB programmers were ticked with MS
over VB.NET? (which was tweaked to avoid some unpleasant breaks in
compatibility)  If you wanted something completely different (and
innovative) you'd have something filling a niche (like Lisp).

MS are out to make money (aren't you?), and they do that by offering a
quick, easy tools to folks who have to go out into world and use those tools
to meet the ill-defined nature of turning human behaviour into solid
partially (or fully) automated systems.  It's not about the code, it's about
the people who use it (programmers and _especially_ end users).  I still
program for fun, but not when somebody is paying me to protect their
livelihood.  (It's one of the things I didn't think about on the road to
becoming a programmer, but it's something I strive to keep in mind every
waking moment now!)

Simply put... Easier language = more time to figure out how people work (and
translate that into "their" software... as opposed to producing something
and then telling people how they have to behave to use "my" software).

So, I've said my piece and I'm feeling better about it.

How are you after having read it? 8-)

Wait!!!  Before you answer that... respond to me directly (see below for my
email).  This is a Dev-C++ mailing list!  I'll respond as best I can (I
expect to be out of the loop in the next little while... becoming a father,
and all that jazz...).

On a side note (or to bring things back to around to Dev-C++).

Why not make the IDE more generic?

Should just be project files that are somewhat proprietary.  Syntax
colouring is available for a ton of languages these days... There would have
to be a way to plug in the languages (to keep things simple), or maybe just
default to MinGW C++, and allow the user to specify the compiler/make
tool/etc.  (Already done in part, I'm using Dev-C++ on my own installation
of MinGW... not the one bundled with 5... works like a charm.)

In fairness... I know.  It comes down to time, and energy.  So, maybe a
vision for the future (haven't checked the Dev-C++ page in awhile, it could
be, and very likely is, that this is, in at least some degree, mentioned
there.  I've even heard you can find out how to unsubscribe from the mailing
list somewhere there too! 8-)

Take 'er easy folks.  I look forward to hearing from you.

---
Matthew Hickson
mhickson AT sympatico DOT ca  (you know what to do)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev...@li... 
> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf 
> Of Matthew Hickson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:05 AM
> To: Dev-C++ User Mailing List
> Subject: [Dev-C++] A few notes re: C#
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I hate to step into this at this point, but what the heck...

Your main point was that C# allows you to do the usual stuff. Naturally
a lot of people will use it. I intend to learn it myself too. But it is
Yet Another Proprietary Language. Did we needed it? I think that for
this kind of stuff we had VB. We did not need another MS language. 

Some remarks concerning VC++ .NET. They do not provide a RAD! Of course
they know what they are doing because if VC++ 7 had a RAD, VC# would be
in trouble. But of course there is Borland C++ Builder with RAD.

About C# being standardised, it was not properly standardised.

The summary is, a lot of people will learn it to make .NET applications,
but we did not need it. It's here to lock in programmers to the windows
platform and to lure Java coders. Also from the whole MS attitude i do
not know if MS doesn't plan to kill VB sometime in the future and have
C# as its proprieatary platform only. I was suspecting it when it was
under development, but now i really do not know (and do not care). :)

Ioannis

* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys

Ioqnnis,

> The summary is, a lot of people will learn it to make .NET applications,
> but we did not need it. It's here to lock in programmers to the windows
> platform and to lure Java coders.

Sorry, but I do not totally agree with you.

Yes, people will learn it in order to make .NET applications, but the whole
point of .NET is that they don't have to learn a new language. What is at
the very heart of .NET is that you can use any language which will produce
the intermediate code that the .NET runtime understands, and there are
several compilers of various languages which do so and promises of more
every day.

Certainly Microsoft wishes to make its operating system more appealing to
programmers of every ilk because it will eventually enhance the MS bottom
line. Frankly I do not begrudge Microsoft making money off of it if .NET
both makes applications more portable, and makes it possible to more easily
combine components from different languages into a finished product.

Regards,

Bob Wilson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev...@li... 
> [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 7:12 AM
> To: Dev-C++ User Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Dev-C++] A few notes re: C#
> 
> 
> Ioqnnis,
> 
> > The summary is, a lot of people will learn it to make .NET 
> applications,
> > but we did not need it. It's here to lock in programmers to 
> the windows
> > platform and to lure Java coders.
> 
> Sorry, but I do not totally agree with you.
> 
> Yes, people will learn it in order to make .NET applications, 
> but the whole
> point of .NET is that they don't have to learn a new 
> language. What is at
> the very heart of .NET is that you can use any language which 
> will produce
> the intermediate code that the .NET runtime understands, and there are
> several compilers of various languages which do so and 
> promises of more
> every day.

Yes, .NET is a cool idea. I was talking about YAPL.

> Certainly Microsoft wishes to make its operating system more 
> appealing to
> programmers of every ilk because it will eventually enhance 
> the MS bottom
> line. Frankly I do not begrudge Microsoft making money off of 
> it if .NET
> both makes applications more portable, and makes it possible 
> to more easily
> combine components from different languages into a finished product.

It makes languages interoperable in the MS platform, but portable is a
"big word". I like .NET.

Ioannis

* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys

Also check http://www.research.att.com/~bs/nantes-interview-english.html
question number 5. :)

Ioannis

* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.cjb.net
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys

Thread: [Dev-C++] dev -c# ???

Open Source C & C++ IDE for Windows

dev-cpp-users