🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 11:47:34 -0400, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:04:25 -0400, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:56:09 -0400, Peter Flass
>>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/06/2018 11:37, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Isn't Mono a clone of .net? What does the common runtime do especially that
>>>>>>> other libraries don't? (actual question, not rhetorical)
>>>>>> All the source languages link together.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sort of like all the gnu languages, the IBM mainframe languages with LE, or
>>>>> all the DEC languages with the common runtime? Leave it to microsoft to
>>>>> claim they invented sunshine.
>>>> 
>>>> Except that the gnu languages and LE don't produce binaries that will
>>>> run without further adjustment on an Alpha, an Itanium, a Sparc, and a
>>>> PC, which, in principle, is true of CLR (I say "in principle" because
>>>> I don't know if the versions of Windows that made it to the Alpha and
>>>> Sparc are recent enough to support CLR).
>>> 
>>> In theory they can, although I don't know if any do in practice. ELF
>>> binaries can contain objects for multiple architectures. Or are you talking
>>> about something that's interpreted? That sounds like a spectacular waste if
>>> resources.
>> 
>> Not interpreted but just in time compilation.
>> 
>> Normally with .net the compilation stage runs ngen and compiles the CIL
>> (common intermediate language) down to native ahead of time and people
>> deploy that. So it isn't usually the case that you can take the x86
>> version of a .NET application and run it on another architecture. You can
>> however choose to take the CIL assembly and run that anywhere there is a CLR 
>> (and appropriate support libraries which is where Mono is sometimes lacking).
>> I would also note that there are some cases where the JIT version is faster
>> than the ahead of time compiled ngen output.
>
> As someone said, it sounds like Java, where the bytecode can be generated
> from any language if the compiler is set up to handle it.

Yep pretty much. Both the CLR and JVM are stack-based virtual machines
with a pretty decent JIT (although I think the Java JIT is a bit better).
Java doesn't have AOT (ahead of time) compilation, .NET can have. The
JVM is more of a classic VM in approach. The CLR has support for lots
of stuff - like tail recursion, pointers, new value types and can deal
with generics better.  Some of that is due to CLR being implemented 
later, some more to do with philosophy. CLR doesn't count as something
innovative in my eye.


-- 
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
   - Douglas Adams