Makes it sense to get a copy of the ANSI standard documents?

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> jacob navia wrote: 
>
>
> Just for informative purposes, the "assembly language" of CLI
> (.NET/Mono) CIL (sometimes mentioned ILASM), is object oriented.
>
>
> MS has a book about "ILASM". Check Amazon.


http://tinyurl.com/2ktjaf

http://tinyurl.com/2tknot

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> jacob navia wrote: 
>
>
> Just for informative purposes, the "assembly language" of CLI
> (.NET/Mono) CIL (sometimes mentioned ILASM), is object oriented.
>
>
> MS has a book about "ILASM". Check Amazon.

I know that...

Did you know that they have written a complete new shell in C#
(that compiles to that abomination called ILASM)

If you time

dir /s *.* | grep NOTFOUND

using the CMD shell (C based) it takes two/three seconds
Using the new shell it takes around 4.5 Minutes.

But obviously you wait with joy!

IT IS OBJECT ORIENTED!

Yes. THIS is PROGRESS.


ILASM is an apparently low level object oriented assembly language.
It needs to be translated into the real assemble however. I know,
those are mere "implementation details".





--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:
> Ioannis Vranos wrote: 
>
> I know that...
>
> Did you know that they have written a complete new shell in C#
> (that compiles to that abomination called ILASM)
>
> If you time
>
> dir /s *.* | grep NOTFOUND
>
> using the CMD shell (C based) it takes two/three seconds
> Using the new shell it takes around 4.5 Minutes.
>
> But obviously you wait with joy!
>
> IT IS OBJECT ORIENTED!
>
> Yes. THIS is PROGRESS.
>
>
> ILASM is an apparently low level object oriented assembly language.
> It needs to be translated into the real assemble however. I know,
> those are mere "implementation details".



All eventually end up to machine code. My point is, given that C++
exists, is a systems programming language, and its standard C++98/03 is
supported by all popular C++ compilers, it can be used as an
intermediate language too, and not C only.

For example one can use C++ high level facilities.

it makes sense to do anything opposite of what heathfield says.

don't read his book its total garbage.

he has no qualification in c

ask navia

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

> jacob navia wrote: 
>
> All eventually end up to machine code. My point is, given that C++
> exists, is a systems programming language, and its standard C++98/03
> is supported by all popular C++ compilers, it can be used as an
> intermediate language too, and not C only.
>
> For example one can use C++ high level facilities.

Yes, but C++ has absolutely nothing to do with C# or .NET or ILASM.