Re: [DotGNU]Who is working on the IL VM?

[Rhys Weatherley]

Martin Coxall wrote:

> > Are you sure?  For example, is the Mono project interested in
> > building a runtime that allows IL-based portable executables
> > to exchange data with programs that come in the form of Java
> > bytecode?
>
> No, I am talking about the IL-runtime that P.Net is seeking to write, not the
> greater good of the dotGNU SEV.

The runtime I discussed in my previous message would
be capable of running both IL and JVM at the same time.
Mono's architecture isn't capable of that without a
massive re-design, which would turn it into a clone of
Portable.NET.

If you want there to be one runtime engine, I couldn't
agree more. Your mission, should you choose to
accept it, is to get Miguel to adopt the better solution.
Have fun.  :-)

BTW, the CVS tree on http://savannah.gnu.org/ now has
support for dumping Java .class files using "ildasm".
I checked it in today.  Support for .jar files and dumping
the contents of methods are on the way.

> Both Mono and P.Net wish to have one of these
> (or am I mistaken?) and certainly should at least be discussing architecture
> ideas with each other.

What level of architecture?  Code?  API's?  Agreeing
what to call a namespace?

> I guess what I am saying is that I don't think Mr P.Net should have severed
> relations with Mono so thoroughly and so quickly. God knows, Miguel can be
> difficult at times, but he can usually be convinced...

It's up to Miguel to make the next move.  He knows my
position on the matter: agree to meet in the middle or
we can't agree at all.  I broke off relations because I got
tired of seeing weekly postings from Miguel asking
people to re-invent code I already had.

Miguel knows my e-mail address.  If you can convince
him to make an offer to me, all to the better.  Until then,
I'll keep plugging along in my own inimitable fashion.

Cheers,

Rhys.