VO specific keywords in Core dialect

Frank Maraite · Post by **Frank Maraite** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:47 am

Chris,
changing all ACC/ASS pairs to properties has led my to learn about headers.cfg B).

Your solution sounds good to me. I hope it's not not much work for Robert and does not introduce unwanted side effects. But in case of ACC/ASS, I would leave this also in the clean dialect. I see this as an cosmetic issue, not a technical one. And people, who want to use the pros of properties have to change it either.
Frank

wriedmann · Post by **wriedmann** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:56 am

Hi Chris,

I agree that a "clean" dialect would be a desired thing, but as you wrote, there are other priorities now - the runtime and the RDD IMHO are at the top of the list.

Regarding access/assign, I think they could be replaced automatically by an XPorter module or n XIDE plugin - doing exactly what the compiler does not under the hood.

Wolfgang

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:42 am

Hi Wolfgang,

It's the compiler that is the most important and difficult task, and thankfully we're very close to the finish line (100% compatibility) now. Once the compiler is finished on that regard, everything else is a lot easier to implement.

About the runtime, we know exactly what we need to do and how to do it, after all it's us that we've already done it (and fixed it) in the past already once. With the compiler, we had a lot of unknowns, a lot of things to learn (Roslyn) and unexpected obstcles, while with the runtime things are a lot more straightforward.

Chris

wriedmann · Post by **wriedmann** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:47 am

Hi Chris,

yes, the compiler for sure is the most complicated thing. I feel I could contribute to the runtime or to the RDD - but contributing to the compiler or the VS integration? These are things a lot above my programming skills!
I may be a decent application programmer, but building a compiler is a different thing!

Therefore I can only congratulate your group to what you have accomplished in this year - it is really great!

Wolfgang

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:25 pm

wriedmann wrote: Therefore I can only congratulate your group to what you have accomplished in this year - it is really great!

I second that.

I hope you don't feel we are pushing to hard in entire different directions.
You are (from what I see) a successful and smooth operating team. If the requirementswishes come in too fast, then you are still the only one that can make the decisions about the (order in the) backlog.

Otto

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:14 pm

Hi Otto, Wolfgang,

Thanks for your nice words! Yeah, the four of us have known each other and/or worked together for a long time know, so that helps a lot. Please everybody keep your suggestions/wishes/feedback coming, they are both motivating and helpful on deciding on what's the best direction to follow..

Chris

FFF · Post by **FFF** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:32 am

wriedmann wrote:I agree that a "clean" dialect would be a desired thing

Wolfgang,
now the interesting question is: what exactly is "clean"? Nothing left, what might remind Vo?

wriedmann · Post by **wriedmann** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:39 am

FFF wrote:
wriedmann wrote:I agree that a "clean" dialect would be a desired thing
Wolfgang,
now the interesting question is: what exactly is "clean"? Nothing left, what might remind Vo?

nothing left, what is not supported in .NET framework, and is transformed under the hood by the compiler.
Best sample may be access/assign, replaced by the properties by the compiler, and maybe there are other things that are better to not support anymore in new code.

I would say: clean does not supports things that are better to not use in new code.

Wolfgang

George · Post by **George** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:48 am

As specific language dialects (Vo/Vulcan etc) exist, I think is better to have a pure .NET Core dialect for the new projects.

George

Main menu