There is a Deep C# article (07/20/2000) over at MSDN. But as it states, the
pickings from Microsoft are pretty slim.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/voices/deep07202000.asp
The article points to a 07/13/2000 discussion from the ECMS TC39 meetings:
http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/tc39/mins-13jul00.html#csharp
Notable and quotable:
> Q: Will this include the associated class libraries? Such
> as the ones needed to support the Python and Perl
> implementations?
>
> A: This will likely include any classes necessary to support
> the standard. As far as the remaining classes, nothing has
> either been ruled in or ruled out. There are some classes
> which are platform specific, and Microsoft has made a first
> pass at splitting out the "system" classes from "microsoft"
> classes. Microsoft expressed an interest in working with
> committed in order to determine the rate at which these
> classes could be digested - suggesting that it was unlikely
> that the full set would become standardized in the first
> revision of these standards.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Tobey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters
>
>
> > > While C might be fine and dandy for getting o.k. native
> code w/o too
> > > much implementation effort, I think that it might be
> worth the effort
> > > to implement a JIT compiler for the perl interpreter's
> intermediate
> > > language.
>
> Speaking of intermediate languages, is there any more concrete info on
> the C# IL than what's in the article? I'd like to know what would be
> involved in supporting it.
>
> --
> John Tobey, late nite hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> \\\ ///
> ]]] With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow. [[[
> /// \\\
>
