RE: a what if...

Actually Visual Studio .NET does not come with a compiler.

All the .NET compilers are included in the .NET Framework SDK (all free),
and all you need is Notepad and a DOS prompt to write and compile a .NET
app.

Visual Studio .NET just makes the building process easier.

Just to be clear.....


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jake Robb
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:12 PM
> To: W3C Public Web Plugins List
> Subject: Re: a what if...
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> CLR is a runtime engine, not a compiler.  You need the CLR to 
> run a .NET
> app, but you can't create one without Visual Studio .NET (or 
> some equivalent
> development environment with a compiler).
> 
> -Jake
> 
> 
> Hector Santos wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Jake,
> > 
> > Its called CLR! Longhorn!!
> > 
> > There is a reason why Microsot must insist that all its 
> applications are
> > part of DOS - no, not Disk Operating System but instead  
> "Distributed
> > Operating System."
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Hector Santos, CTO
> > Santronics Software, Inc.
> > http://www.santronics.com
> > 305-431-2846 Cell
> > 305-248-3204 Office
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jake Robb" <jakerobb@mac.com>
> > To: "W3C Public Web Plugins List" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
> > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: a what if...
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Sounds like a perfect opportunity to open up a few 
> thousand more security
> >> holes in IE.
> >> 
> >> That aside, it could work.  Windows will have to start 
> shipping with a
> >> compiler installed by default... it's about time!
> >> 
> >> -Jake
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Aral Balkan wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> Um, I'm pretty sure that "extensions" are the same as "plugins".
> >>>> Code in a
> >>>> different file, loaded at runtime, and run at the request of a
> > hypermedia
> >>>> document.  Covered by the patent, I think.
> >>> 
> >>> To highlight my previous post (emphasis added):
> >>> 
> >>>>> Hmm, not if the browser was built with an 
> extendable/open framework.
> > It
> >>> [the browser]
> >>>>> could then be *recompiled* with a new extension built using that
> >>>> framework and
> >>>>> abiding by the open API.
> >>> 
> >>> Would it really be covered by the patent if the extension was
> >>> *compiled/patched* into the browser? i.e., the browser 
> was recompiled to
> >>> include the patch? e.g., sample workflow:
> >>> 
> >>> 1. I go on a site that uses Flash 14.0.
> >>> 2. I am informed that my browser does not support Flash 
> 14.0 and given a
> >>> link to download the extension.
> >>> 3. After downloading the extension, IE automatically 
> *recompiles* its
> >>> executable, including the Flash 14.0 patch/extension
> >>> 4. IE restarts itself, now with the extension as part of 
> its binary and
> >>> displays the page
> >>> 
> >>> Aral
> >>> ---
> >>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >>> Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 01:33:16 UTC