>In one sense, but Portable .NET runs CIL just as Mono and MS.NET do. >However, Portable.Net converts IL into another, stilll lower >representation "CVM" before translation to machine code.
Thats right. But where is the advantage of this indirection? I don't belive, that compiling IL-Code in memory-space to CVM and compiling CVM to native-code, that this is faster then the direct compiling of IL-code to native-code (in memory). And _if_ this indirection is faster: Why don't mono the same? And if it is _not_ faster (what I think): Why choose p.net this way? And where is the advatage of p.net in comparison to mono? I don't see any advantage. (I have never understood, why the p-net project exists, because there exists mono) To this, what you have cite, it seems, that compiling CVM-bytecode directly to native-code is faster then compiling .net-bytecode directly to native-code. In this case I ask myself, why p.net don't use the CVM-bytecode _instead_ the IL-code. Why existing no compiler which save the CVM-bytecode on disc, so that this code is that, what can be startet? If the CVM-Bytecode is realy better then the IL-code, why don't create p.net not its own VM, which needs its own Bytecode-files instead of trying to start .net- and Java-programs direct (with the JIT-detour over CVM)? Greatings BL-Freddy _________________________________________________________________ Senden und empfangen Sie MSN Hotmail �ber Ihren PocketPC: http://pocketpc.msn.de _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
