Re: [vox] Gopher: New use for old software.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] Gopher: New use for old software.
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> > > is .NET code portable or not?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> rod was saying the answer was essentially no. that you *could* make it
> portable,
I guess it depends on what "portable" means. Is a language portable if
programs *can* be made portable, or if it *forces* programs to be
portable?
> but were given the opportunity and perhaps even encouraged to
> make it non-portable.
Only time will tell, I suppose.
==8<--
> > > i was also confused by:
> > >
> > > .NET uses .dll files to link some code, but these would have
> > > meaning on a linux platform too.
> > >
> > > how is this possible?
> >
> > What he meant was you'd be loading .so files instead of .dll on Linux
> > using the same syntax but different file names. He meant the syntax would
> > have a meaning on Linux, not the DLL filename.
>
> this is hardly what i would think of as platform agnostic code. i can
> hardly think of anything *less* platform agnostic than making reference
> to a system library.
Umm. I agree that the word "agnostic" being improper in the context.
Overall, as a developer, I like the idea that a program can be working at
a low level if necessary. I don't like the Windows API, though (too
complex...), but I'll probably use this interfacing feature to interface
with APIs I know, perhaps SDL.DLL :) I am a little weary that MS is
heading this, though.
-Mark
--
Mark K. Kim
http://www.cbreak.org/
PGP key available upon request.
_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
vox@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox
|
