[Mono-list] .dll .exe ?

[Thong (Tum) Nguyen]

Hi Miguel,

I agree that it made sense for Microsoft to use the DLL "vessel" format.
I just don't see why they needed to keep the "DLL" file extension.
Nothing about windows prevents DLLs from having different file
extensions and as I noted, many DLLs on windows do actually use
different file extensions :-).

I'm still campaigning for .DNA for libraries and .RNA for modules.  Not
sure what the extension for executables should be yet :-).

^Tum


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
> admin@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Miguel de Icaza
> Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2003 8:08 a.m.
> To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen
> Cc: 'juan'; mono-list@ximian.com
> Subject: RE: [Mono-list] .dll .exe ?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> > I'll never understand why Microsoft used the .DLL extension.  Even
> > pre-dotnet dlls didn't always use .DLL (e.g. ActiveX controls use
.OCX
> > and control panel applets used .CPL).
> 
> In .NET you can mix managed and unmanaged code into the same assembly
> (Managed C++ can do this for example).  So you can actually have mixed
> assemblies, so it makes sense to reuse the "vesel" format.
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list