[CoreTeam]Re: [Mono-list] DotGNU oddness.

David Sugar dyfet@ostel.com
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:33:47 -0400


It is important that a fully compatible bytecode system is supported as per 
the ECMA specs in DotGNU.  It is also important to have alternatives and 
options possible should this not prove legally possible or require some other 
ethical compromises with freedom that we should not make.

The exact definition I think we should work at in DotGNU is the two track 
approach, one being to support a bytecode system, the C# language spec, and 
class libs that fully complies with the ECMA specs, and the other being based 
on java work with supporting class libs.  This offers both freedom of choice 
and leverages another and very mature bytecode system, as well as providing 
options in case of legal dirty tricks...

David

Norbert Bollow wrote:

> "John Barnette" <jbarn@httcb.net>
> 
>> Am I just smoking crack, or does DotGNU no longer have a web presence?
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> As far as I can see, the DotGNU website at http://dotgnu.org/
> and also the mirror at http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/
> are working fine.
> 
> BTW a little update (that is not on the website yet) -- It looks
> very much now like we will want the DotGNU platform to
> "natively" support multiple bytecode formats.  We plan to make it a
> priority to have both a Java and an IL virtual machines, and then
> to make it possible for other virtual machines to be added at a
> later stage.
> 
> Greetings, Norbert.
> (DotGNU webmaster, listadmin, and member of the DotGNU core team)