Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...(Your both morons)

[Ted]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Shelton wrote:
>> "Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote in message news:3dc93298@tnews.web.devx.com...
>>> blob wrote:
>>>>> Rubbish. The C# compiler was written in C++ because of the obvious
>>>>> bootstrap problem.
>>>> Kunle, you ignorant slut. The C# compiler was not written in 100%
>>>> C++.
>>>
>>> Really?. Have a gander mate http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/sscli.
>>>
>>> Kunle
>>
>> Obviously parts of it have to be written in C or C++. But I was
>> always under the impression that the C# compiler was a mixture of C++
>> and C#. I could be wrong here...
>
>And so could I but, AFAIK the C# compiler is written in C++. The class
>libraries - the framework - are written in C/C++/C#.
>
>> Ed said parts of VB.NET - so what else is there to VB.NET if not the
>> compiler and runtime. And since the runtime already is written in
>> VB.NET....
>
>Why *re-write* the compiler in VB.NET?
>
>> So what do you think, a couple of hockey add-ins maybe. If that's
>> it, then I'll be rather disappointed
>
>I wouldn't be bothered either way. If MS was going to kill off VB.NET, the
>fact that the VB.NET compiler is written in VB.NET would play no part in
>saving it.
>
>Kunle
>
blob, kunle you are both morons.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/VSTU...dio_062602.asp

The libs are written mostly in C# with some C++ and a little VB as stated
in the link.

The compiler is 99.999999% C++ but don't let them fool you, while in Redmond
3 years ago I heard that a little C# was thrown in for good measure. It
doens't appear to be documented anywhere externally.


Now both of you crawl back into your holes.

[Ted]

"Ted" <tttt@ttt.com> wrote:
>
>"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>Tom Shelton wrote:
>>> "Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk>
>>> wrote in message news:3dc93298@tnews.web.devx.com...
>>>> blob wrote:
>>>>>> Rubbish. The C# compiler was written in C++ because of the obvious
>>>>>> bootstrap problem.
>>>>> Kunle, you ignorant slut. The C# compiler was not written in 100%
>>>>> C++.
>>>>
>>>> Really?. Have a gander mate http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/sscli.
>>>>
>>>> Kunle
>>>
>>> Obviously parts of it have to be written in C or C++. But I was
>>> always under the impression that the C# compiler was a mixture of C++
>>> and C#. I could be wrong here...
>>
>>And so could I but, AFAIK the C# compiler is written in C++. The class
>>libraries - the framework - are written in C/C++/C#.
>>
>>> Ed said parts of VB.NET - so what else is there to VB.NET if not the
>>> compiler and runtime. And since the runtime already is written in
>>> VB.NET....
>>
>>Why *re-write* the compiler in VB.NET?
>>
>>> So what do you think, a couple of hockey add-ins maybe. If that's
>>> it, then I'll be rather disappointed
>>
>>I wouldn't be bothered either way. If MS was going to kill off VB.NET,
the
>>fact that the VB.NET compiler is written in VB.NET would play no part in
>>saving it.
>>
>>Kunle
>>
>blob, kunle you are both morons.
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/VSTU...dio_062602.asp
>
>The libs are written mostly in C# with some C++ and a little VB as stated
>in the link.
>
>The compiler is 99.999999% C++ but don't let them fool you, while in Redmond
>3 years ago I heard that a little C# was thrown in for good measure. It
>doens't appear to be documented anywhere externally.
>
>
>Now both of you crawl back into your holes.
>

oops, "You're" both morons.

sorry about the grammar.

[Ted]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Ted wrote:
>
>> blob, kunle you are both morons.
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/VSTU...dio_062602.asp
>
>I posted that link a while back if memory serves.
>
>> The compiler is 99.999999% C++ but don't let them fool you, while in
>> Redmond 3 years ago I heard that a little C# was thrown in for good
>> measure. It doens't appear to be documented anywhere externally.
>
>Whatever you may have heard while having a private dinner - in your honour
-
>with Bill and Melinda is of no consequence/relevance. The compiler was
>developed in C/C++ Ted.
>
>It was a decison forced by the requirements for compiler bootstrapping.
Try
>Google if you don't know what that means.
>
>Kunle

Kunle,

I'll try this again. At least read the link. Do you "C" "C" alone in there
anywhere? You are skirting around the post. You said the libs were written
in C#/C++/C and the compiler was written in C++/C. The link I provided does
not support what you have said even if it does not mention C# being used
in the compiler.

What knowledge I have picked up while working for MS Consulting Services
is irregardless. I know for a fact that you are once again wrong. Now,
as I said before, go back in your hole.

[Kunle Odutola]

Ted wrote:

> blob, kunle you are both morons.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/VSTU...dio_062602.asp

I posted that link a while back if memory serves.

> The compiler is 99.999999% C++ but don't let them fool you, while in
> Redmond 3 years ago I heard that a little C# was thrown in for good
> measure. It doens't appear to be documented anywhere externally.

Whatever you may have heard while having a private dinner - in your honour -
with Bill and Melinda is of no consequence/relevance. The compiler was
developed in C/C++ Ted.

It was a decison forced by the requirements for compiler bootstrapping. Try
Google if you don't know what that means.

Kunle

[blob]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Kunle Odutola wrote:
>> C# Compiler --> C++
>
>should be
>
>C# Compiler --> C/C++
>
>Kunle

You are both wrong and I am right as usual.

Good bye

[Kunle Odutola]

Ted wrote:

> Kunle,
>
> I'll try this again. At least read the link. Do you "C" "C" alone in
> there anywhere? You are skirting around the post. You said the libs
> were written in C#/C++/C and the compiler was written in C++/C.

Oh, you mean it should be:
C# Compiler --> C++
ClassLibs --> C#/C++
Runtime --> C++/C/Assembler (of course this has explicit support for
some of the functions in the libs)

That's cool.

> The
> link I provided does not support what you have said even if it does
> not mention C# being used in the compiler.

OK, so you were wrong on that. That's cool.

> What knowledge I have picked up while working for MS Consulting
> Services is irregardless.

Appeal to Authority? Again? Get outta here!. That's so un-cool.

> I know for a fact that you are once again
> wrong. Now, as I said before, go back in your hole.

<*yawn mumbled-words="..not cool!..."*>

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

Kunle Odutola wrote:
> C# Compiler --> C++

should be

C# Compiler --> C/C++

Kunle