I'm not sure I get it. If the IL version is shipped alongside the compiled version, why can't I just run the IL version in the old way, any time I'm not on one of the platforms the compiled version is targeted at? It'd just start a bit slower.
Microsoft has continued its quickfire pace of .NET Core 3 updates, flinging preview 6 at developers keen on the open-source platform. Program manager Richard Lander also took time to report on the company's progress in shovelling the source behind the venerable Windows Presentation Framework (WPF) into GitHub. It's safe to say …
Friday 14th June 2019 09:42 GMT bombastic bob
stop, you're making too much sense!
There's the right way (compile efficient code to native binary)
There's the wrong way (scripty scripty scripty)
And there's the MICRO-SHAFT WAY! ".Not".
Take a look at the 'hello world' example for a C-pound appliation, compare to simple hello world application in C. Even a windows version just calls an API function to create a dialog box. Yeah. How to OVER-complicate the otherwise simple.
(and if it's open source, native compiling for any platform should be relatively straightforward)
just thinking, maybe the point here is that MS tried to make "one windows to rule them all" and ended up NOT being on "devices" after all. And so you have x86 and ARM. So why do we need a P-code translation taht can be re-compiled into something more efficient in the FIRST place? JUST! MAKE! NATIVE! BINARIES! clang and gcc have LOTS of cross-compiler support. shouldn't be too hard using THOSE...