[Mono-list] Re: Is Objective-C support possible?

[Davide Inglima - limaCAT]

>> This article suggests it would be impossible to write an Objective-C
or TOM
>> compiler for .NET or any .NET clones. Can anybody clarify this issue?

>> http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html

> Implementing Objective-C in .NET is possible.    Indeed, trivial.

> What people do not seen to realize (and they keep banging on this) is
> that the Common Type System (CTS) and the Common Language
Specification
> (CLS) provide a system and a framework for inter-operation.

> You are free to follow or ignore those rules, that is up to you.  For
> example, lets say the MiguelLisp language is pure and wont even
attempt
> to follow the CTS or CLS, but I can still use .NET objects with a
> special `dotnetcall', so I could do things like:

> (dotnetcall "String.IndexOf" "miguel" "g")
>
> Sure, it does not look as nice as other constructs in MiguelLisp, but
> that is not the point.  The point that the dude in JavaLobby is trying
> to make that .NET is just a bunch of "skins" on top of .NET is
> incorrect.

<wild imagination = "on">

To which I ask:

is it possible / feasible / useful to expand this thinking and design
and implement another VM that could sit side to side with CTS/CLS, but
that has a different approach to dynamic and static objects? (Like easy
multiple inheritance and templates for C++, and or an approach more
lisp-friendly for lisp/scheme languages?)

Let say to implement a MonoEmacs, which isn't based on Mono itself, but
on a modified version of the Emacs runtime environment (if I recall
well, Emacs is an interpreter of bitecoded lisp, so correct and whip me
if I am wrong)... what would be the cost to make the MonoEmacs .mel
files compliant with assemblies of mono .exes? (so to share not only the
apis, but also the security aspects, signed assemblies et al...)

<wild imagination/>

--
Davide Inglima, limaCAT