www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D and the .NET framework

reply M. Termeer <M._member pathlink.com> writes:
Will it ever be possible to use the .NET framework in D? Or to link D code

problem would greatly improve the things you can do with D. But since there is
no intention on ever support linking C++ code, I wonder if this (simpler object
model) will ever be supported.
Jun 09 2004
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <ca7ais$2ps5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, M. Termeer says...

Will it ever be possible to use the .NET framework in D? Or to link D code

problem would greatly improve the things you can do with D. But since there is
no intention on ever support linking C++ code, I wonder if this (simpler object
model) will ever be supported.


Not likely unless someone decides to write a CLI compiler for D.  AFAIK it isn't
even possible to call code in .NET assemblies from within unmanaged C++
applications, except perhaps with a considerable hack.


Sean
Jun 09 2004
next sibling parent Stephan Wienczny <wienczny web.de> writes:
*g*

I today ordered a book called "Build Your Own .NET Language and Compiler"

Have a look at my project at dsource and my roadmap...

Sean Kelly wrote:

 In article <ca7ais$2ps5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, M. Termeer says...
 

Will it ever be possible to use the .NET framework in D? Or to link D code

problem would greatly improve the things you can do with D. But since there is
no intention on ever support linking C++ code, I wonder if this (simpler object
model) will ever be supported.


 
 
 Not likely unless someone decides to write a CLI compiler for D.  AFAIK it
isn't
 even possible to call code in .NET assemblies from within unmanaged C++
 applications, except perhaps with a considerable hack.
 
 
 Sean
Jun 09 2004
prev sibling parent EricAnderton at yahoo dot com <EricAnderton_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <ca7cml$2tav$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...

In article <ca7ais$2ps5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, M. Termeer says...

Will it ever be possible to use the .NET framework in D? Or to link D code

problem would greatly improve the things you can do with D. But since there is
no intention on ever support linking C++ code, I wonder if this (simpler object
model) will ever be supported.


Not likely unless someone decides to write a CLI compiler for D.  AFAIK it isn't
even possible to call code in .NET assemblies from within unmanaged C++
applications, except perhaps with a considerable hack.


Sean


I know that tying one's self to a particular .NET implementation isn't such a
hot idea, but have you tried using Mono (www.go-mono.com)?  They have a
c-interface for their runtime that might help. 

http://www.go-mono.com/embedded-api.html

A D wrapper for this would be pretty swanky if you ask me.  Especially given
that mono's portability matches D's pretty closely. :)

Also, you can always create a .NET COM object and interface with it in the
typical COM fashion.  Although I've never done such a thing, I get the
impression that Walter at least had COM in mind when writing D/phobos since
there's hints to it all over the place.

Outside of that, you're pretty much out of luck. You're not going to get
link-level compatibility between D and .NET (or anything and .NET for that
matter) simply because CLI bytecode doesn't even become native machinecode until
runtime.  CLI is it's own beast. :(

- Eric
Jun 09 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"M. Termeer" <M._member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:ca7ais$2ps5$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Will it ever be possible to use the .NET framework in D? Or to link D code



linking

 problem would greatly improve the things you can do with D. But since


there is

 no intention on ever support linking C++ code, I wonder if this (simpler


object

 model) will ever be supported.


I don't see any big roadblocks to doing this other than lack of time. Of
course, if someone is willing to fund it, it'll move up in the priority list
<g>.
Jun 09 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"M. Termeer" <M._member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:ca7ais$2ps5$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Will it ever be possible to use the .NET framework in D?


It's possible now to embed .NET framework via COM, just as with any other
COM-aware language


 Or to link D code



No


 Solving this linking
 problem would greatly improve the things you can do with D. But since there is
 no intention on ever support linking C++ code, I wonder if this (simpler object
 model) will ever be supported.


Only if it's an open-source effort, or Walter employs someone (me! me!) to do
it,
or if D gets sufficiently successful that MS are persuaded to do it.

Otherwise, no.

Either way, there's absolutely no point even starting while the language is
still
in flux. This might be a nice way to use post-1.0 D, however, in writing a .NET
mapping in D.
Jun 09 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Matthew wrote:


Either way, there's absolutely no point even starting while the language is
still
in flux.
  


I don't know about that.  There are many things in D that are fixed, why 
not start on those areas first?


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 09 2004
parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:ca81lt$rs6$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Matthew wrote:


Either way, there's absolutely no point even starting while the language is




still

in flux.


 I don't know about that.  There are many things in D that are fixed, why
 not start on those areas first?


Maybe absolutely was too strong. It just seems like it's a very serious
undertaking, and to work on it when a host of things are up in the air would be
vexing.

Or maybe I've misinterpreted the recent flux on the NG. Several months ago we
were talking about an imminent release, but of late the debate has encompassed a
wide variety of different issues, many of which have elicited comment from
Walter. My interpretation of this is that we're having a last, non-trivial,
splurge of language changes before it's cast in stone (or steel, or bronze at
least), for 1.0.
Jun 09 2004