Mono C# Compiler Compiles Itself

Bob Smith writes: "Miguel just commited the last patch nessisary to get Mono's C# compiler to compile itself. After 7 odd months, MCS is now self hosting." jbarn adds: "Mono-list email is here."

Comments

More developers to mono

[famazza]

I think it'll bring more developers to mono, and also more accurate code. Many developers couldn't code with quality due to the lack of a linux compiler, to develop the mono framework developers should go to windows and compile at .net compiler.

It's a big step forward. Congratulations

Samba anyone ?

[MosesJones]

Isn't it wonderful having C# and .NET on Linux, after all they won't have the problems that Samba boys have trying to keep up with MS deliberately changing things to stop them, and it won't be miles worse.

Mono is a nice idea, but unfortunately .NET isn't a revolution, its a way to build poor quality mainframes, lots of boxes, poor IO. In terms of distribution there is none. Full credit to the guys for doing this but it does remind me of a Larson cartoon, you know the one with the Sheep Bar and the line

"What do you know, I'm a follower too"

Re:I haven't heard good things about C#

[Crimplene Prakman]

Hence Mono.

And and the controversy over the last while over whether our buddy Miguel et al are aiding and abetting the Redmond Ragtags, or opening the use of C#, quite likely one of the best all-round OOP RAD-able languages available, to the rest of the world outside those who don't mind being "locked in", as you say.

If nothing else, it will be yet another choice, and let's face it: if Linux allows for nothing else, it's choice. Choice in WMs, xterms, Desktop Environments, GUI toolkits, distros, package managers, and now choice in top-end populist OOP languages.

Re:I haven't heard good things about C#

[Crimplene Prakman]

If you think C# is at nearly the same level as C, you're very mistaken. It has much in common with Java, which is only related to C about as much as mice are to elephants.

C# and C share a letter and an ancestry, but have a completely different raison d'être, philosophy and implementation.

Re:a dumb question

[cperciva]

what is so good about a compiler being able to compile itself?

Once the compiler can compile itself, you can stick a trojan into it and have a good chance of nobody noticing.

Re:Microsoft and "standards"

[SerpentMage]

You are right on all of your points. But I ask the following. Can your HP-UX station use authentication that allows it to hook into Active Directory with all bells and whistles? Probably not.

It is not that Microsoft changes the basics. That is pretty easy to catch up to. What is more problematic is keeping up.

Let me explain. Lets say that I build an application using the Windows API (actually am). Everything works fine until the user starts using it on Windows XP or Windows 2000. You may ask why? Well according to the new security rules the application must only save content under the "My Documents" folder and not the folder installed to or something else. So now you are wondering how do I get access to the "My Documents" folder? The answer is a brand new API that is only available in a modern Platform SDK because when Visual C++ was released the API did not exist.

Do you see the issue? It is not that they break backward compatibility. It is that they introduce new rules which require you force upgrade your code. And that will happen with .NET. That is also why Miguel is dreaming about doing .NET on LINUX.