[Mono-list] CIL

[Freddy BL]

>In one sense, but Portable .NET runs CIL just as Mono and MS.NET do.
>However, Portable.Net converts IL into another, stilll lower
>representation "CVM" before translation to machine code.

Thats right.
But where is the advantage of this indirection?
I don't belive, that compiling IL-Code in memory-space to CVM and compiling 
CVM to native-code, that this is faster then the direct compiling of IL-code 
to native-code (in memory).

And _if_ this indirection is faster: Why don't mono the same?
And if it is _not_ faster (what I think): Why choose p.net this way?

And where is the advatage of p.net in comparison to mono?
I don't see any advantage. (I have never understood, why the p-net project 
exists, because there exists mono)


To this, what you have cite, it seems, that compiling CVM-bytecode directly 
to native-code is faster then compiling .net-bytecode directly to 
native-code.

In this case I ask myself, why p.net don't use the CVM-bytecode _instead_ 
the IL-code. Why existing no compiler which save the CVM-bytecode on disc, 
so that this code is that, what can be startet?

If the CVM-Bytecode is realy better then the IL-code, why don't create p.net 
not its own VM, which needs its own Bytecode-files instead of trying to 
start .net- and Java-programs direct (with the JIT-detour over CVM)?


Greatings
BL-Freddy


_________________________________________________________________
Senden und empfangen Sie MSN Hotmail über Ihren PocketPC: 
http://pocketpc.msn.de