[Mono-list] missing "native feel" ?

[Thomas R. Corbin]

On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:34, Andrew Arnott wrote:
> > >  > That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so
> > >  > that there
> > >  > existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs.
> > >  >
> > >
> > > The problem with giving it a "native" feel is that it destroys one of
> > the
> > > objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and
> > > "just run it".
> > 
> > Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats:
> > the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run
> > fine under mono...
> > 
> > But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile
> > into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible.
> > 
> > The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at
> > the start of file)
> 
> But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere.  Why would we
> want to segregate formats?  Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward
> by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and
> linux).  It's true Microsoft is influencing Linux in this way by putting
> .exe and .dll back into the lives of Linux users, but I don't see that as a
> bad thing.  
> 
> Perl scripts end with .pl.  Java classes end in .class.  CLI programs end in

	Perl scripts, python scripts, bash scripts that I execute do not have a
.pl, .py, or .sh extension.

	As for java, I wrap all the java programs with a shell or batch file to
make it easier on my users.  For that matter, all the commercial java
applications that I use do so as well.

> .exe or .dll, depending on their executability.  My position is, Linux isn't
> being betrayed or tainted by keeping .exe and .dll's.  It's actually
> consistent because file types typically have unique extensions, and a .so is
> very different from a .dll.  

	For me, the .dll is fine, it's the .exe.

> 
> Just my take on things.  No endorsements.
> 
> Andrew Arnott