Qt-interest Archive, March 2002
RE: Alternatives to VC++ IDE? [OT]
Message 1 in thread
[Self-editorial note - this thread is getting off topic for this list, so
this will be the last reply I make to it unless it is directly related to Qt
on .NET]
> The problem with .NET is a general problem with MS and that is that they
> think one tool can work for everything. The CLR is based on what
> C# needed.
> This handles a fair bit of C++ as well but not the interesting
> bits and also
> some other languages like Java and C but its going to be a poor match for
> others (Forth, Ada, ...) that don't closely match C#. Not to
> mention the use
> of other small scripting languages like Tcl and things like functional
> programming languages and such.
You might guess that this is the case, but the truth seems to be quite
different. Under what MS seems to have been calling 'Project 7', they
actually got a lot of input from a large number of independent compiler
writers, who contributed to the design of the CLR and CTS. MS hired Simon
Peyton Jones to MS Research in Cambridge, who was behind Haskell and as I
understand it also involved in the design of the CLR. Having read the CLR
instruction set documentation, I can't see anything (at least in unverified
mode) that would prevent any kind of language from being implemented. The
CTS is there for intereoperability between languages primarily - the fact
that VB and C# use it as their only way of generating code is neither here
or there in the wider scheme of things. If anything, C# is what the CLR
needed, rather than the other way around.
As regards the languages you mention, Ada and Forth, I don't know of
compilers being developed for either of them at the moment, but that may
just be because I haven't been looking. As regards Ada, it doesn't do
anything that C++ or Component Pascal doesn't, so I'd be very surprised if
there would be a problem compiling it for CLR.
As for Forth, it's hard to imagine a better platform than the CLR. The
System::Reflection namespace in the .NET framework has functionality that
makes it fairly straightforward to emit CLR instructions, JIT compile them
and turn them into executable code on the fly. A Forth system could use
this, with minimal effort, to compile Forth words into native code. Since
the CLR itself uses a stack machine model, this is almost completely
trivial. A top-level interpreter for Forth, even hand coded in assembler,
rarely takes up more than a few pages of source, and in this case could
feasibly be written in C, C++, C# or even directly in MSIL assembler without
too much trouble. I suspect that a suitably knowledgeable Forth hacker could
probably bootstrap a Forth system for the CLR inside a week.
I've heard of about a dozen third party compilers that are either already
shipping, or that will ship very soon, most of which are actually open
source, that target the CLR. I am very much looking forward to New Jersey
SML for .NET - I've liked that language for a decade now, but have never
been able to use it in anger due to its previously limited support for
interoperation with other languages. I am still a little amazed at MS's
level of enlightened self interest in having actually financially supported
a lot of this work.
> Its the same idea with running Windows on every device. Its just not
> designed to scale well down to a PDA and up to enterprise servers.
>
> The analogy in my head is with other tools. Sure I can open a
> can and cut a
> board in half with a hammer but its just not the best tool for the job!
True enough. Nevertheless, I do believe that the CLR is a good idea whose
time has come. I'd rather it had come from the Linux/BSD/GNU world, but it
didn't. I personally don't like MS as a company - their business practices
scare me not a little. My feelings about most of their products run from
outright hatred (COM, MFC, ATL, Windows 9x), through tolerance (VC++, NT4),
to grudging acceptance (Win2k, XP). I'm no MS fan, certainly no unpaid
evangelist. Nevertheless, I don't mind admitting it when I see a good idea.
CLR is a *really* good idea. As for what MS do with it, only time will tell.
But since the CLR is AFAIK an open standard, there's no good reason why the
open source world can't benefit from it, and indeed assimilate it. After
all, there is at least one open source .NET framework under development
already. If the Linux world gets its act together, maybe some time soon it
will be possible to write an applicaion that, without needing to ship
source, will just run on nearly anything, regardless of CPU, architecture or
operating system. Java promised this, but didn't deliver. It got close -
annoyingly close - but not close enough. The CLR design is much more
sophisticated than the JVM, and seems to address its problems, not least by
having been designed from the outset for JIT, with no pretentions to being
efficiently interpretable.
Sarah
Message 2 in thread
Anyone know if you can have Visual Studio NET and Visual Studio 6 on the
same machine?? I want to try out the CLR stuff, but I don't want to lose the
ability to compile my QT code at work. I recall trying the .NET Beta
version last year and it totally screwed up my Win2K machine.
-Omar
Message 3 in thread
On Thursday 14 March 2002 4:17 pm, Omar wrote:
> Anyone know if you can have Visual Studio NET and Visual Studio 6 on the
> same machine?? I want to try out the CLR stuff, but I don't want to lose
> the ability to compile my QT code at work. I recall trying the .NET Beta
> version last year and it totally screwed up my Win2K machine.
I was able to have both installed (VC7 release candidate) just fine, though
please note that I ONLY use the C++ compiler, not VB or anything else. Also,
file associations will be grabbed by one or the other.
That said, you are likely better off with a separate partition for VC7 if you
rely on VC6 on a day-to-day basis. And be warned that it took me several
hours to get VC7 installed and my machine is certainly not underpowered.
Message 4 in thread
Yers,
I have that installation
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omar" <omar@natasha.org>
To: "Qt-Interest@Trolltech. Com" <qt-interest@trolltech.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: VC 7 and VC 6 on same machine
> Anyone know if you can have Visual Studio NET and Visual Studio 6 on the
> same machine?? I want to try out the CLR stuff, but I don't want to lose
the
> ability to compile my QT code at work. I recall trying the .NET Beta
> version last year and it totally screwed up my Win2K machine.
>
>
> -Omar
>
> --
> List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
