I will probably work on getting the modifying the bindings/swig Makefile soon to get the csharp wrappers compiling on unix systems soon, but I wanted to know how important it was so I could prioritize my time.
God Bless, Jason On 2/6/06, Greg Marine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, and I would love to see this work with Mono. IMHO, making it compatible > with just MS .NET would be my first priority, though. That is because there > are 2 great Linux Sword projects. But, if it will work with Mono, that would > be great too! > > > On 2/6/06, Greg Marine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't done this yet, but you can build .NET 1.1 and 1.0 with VS2005. > The following link has the how-to: > > > > > http://weblogs.asp.net/rmclaws/archive/2005/06/04/410360.aspx > > > > > > > > > > On 2/6/06, Wade Maxfield < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > C# is an ECMA language. Mono fully supports that language in version > 1.1. The version 2.0 is not there yet, if I remember correctly. ( > http://www.mono-project.com) > > > > > > The key difference between mono and Microsoft's implementation is that > Microsoft supports Windows Forms. Mono does not yet support Windows Forms. > They implemented a GTK situation, which is also available under Windows. > > > > > > Therefore, for now, an application that works with version 1.1 under > XP, if written to Windows Forms, does not work on Linux. > > > > > > However, that is changing. Novell should have a Windows Forms > implementation working in the next few months. They welcome developer help > with the project. > > > > > > It is my opinion that the Sword project can be implemented in Windows > Forms for now, using 1.1 (Not 2.0) and then, once Windows Forms work under > Linux, then port it to linux. Some of your Assembly libraries will have to > be recompiled, and some controls might have to be re-written or > re-implemented. > > > > > > 2.0 introduces too many changes to be forward compatible back to 1.1 > (I know, weird terminology), even when being careful. In addition, if you > compile to bytecode under 2.0, it will not work under the 1.1 CLR. You have > to compile to the runtime version you need to work under, using the 1.1 > compiler for the 1.1 CLR (common language runtime). > > > > > > If you compile using the 1.1 mono compiler, the bytecode will work > with the .NET framework under Windows. It will also work with the CLR under > Linux, unless the library support is not there for the function you chose to > use in the code. I haven't tried it, but I believe the reverse is true. I > think that if you compile with the .NET compiler from Microsoft, you get > bytecode that works on Linux. > > > > > > 2.0 CLR can execute 1.1 runtime in some cases, although I think you > have to have the 1.1 framework installed for that to happen. It may be the > CLR hands off to the older version. Also, the 1.1 framework can co-exist on > the same machine the 2.0 framework is on (especially if you only install the > runtime .NET framework.) There does not yet seem to be any downside to > writing to the 1.1 version for maximum portablility (except for the fact you > don't get some of the updated functionality from the 2.0 library.) > > > > > > > > > In addition, Borland puts out the 1.0 version of their C# builder > personal for free. You just have to download it. ( > http://www.borland.com/downloads/download_csharpbuilder.html > ) and register it. (get the "personal download edition") It can be used for > non commercial projects. It works with the 1.1 framework, I've used it. I > recommend getting it soon, it may go away. > > > > > > Also, you can get the free SharpDevelop IDE for Windows from ( > http://icsharpcode.net). It has some bugs, and CANNOT do step by step debug > (in version that was first written for 1.1). Borland's IDE CAN do step by > step debug for .NET 1.1 in its IDE 1.0 version. Version 2.0 of SharpDevelop > can do debug, but it's support of 1.1 is problematic. > > > > > > I have used the Free Visual Studio Express for C# on my system. It is > available for free download. ( > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx). > > > > > > There are only 3 downsides: > > > 1) it won't do 1.1 development > > > > > > 2) I've had my Windows 2000 box spontaneously reboot while working > in the IDE. Twice. In one day. I fixed this by bringing up an XP vmware > box and using it there. No problems under XP that I've seen. > > > > > > 3) installing it alongside Borland C# IDE 1.0 messes up Borland's > IDE. The help system changes significantly by installing .NET 2.0 and it > craters Borland. I have not figured out how to fix that issue. Some online > recommendations did not work for me. > > > > > > > > > My recommendation for cross-compatibility (to WindowS, Mac OSX, > Linux) is to do version 1.1 of .NET, and then port up to 2.0 some time in > the future (after Microsoft patches it a few times, and Linux supports it). > I backed away from 2.0 down to 1.1 for all of the reasons aforementioned. > > > > > > God Bless you for your efforts. > > > > > > wade > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/6/06, Greg Hellings < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Working under mono/gcc would be a good goal for XP (as in > cross-platform, not as in WinXP) programs. However, since the goal of Mono > (I think) is to be compatible with C# and not vice-versa, if you don't have > Mono support you might not be too bad off, since Mono might come around > closer to C#/.NET compatibility. > > > > > > > > --Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/6/06, Jason Turner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am curious who all out there is currently using the SWIG bindings > > > > > for sword, with which languages? I am also wondering what the > current > > > > > need/desire is to have the CSharp version working with mono and gcc? > > > > > > > > > > God Bless, > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://emptycrate.com Games, Programming, Travel & other stuff > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > > > > > > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > > > > > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > > > > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > > > > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > > > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > > > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Internet Community Church Ministries > > Because of His Grace We Serve > > http://www.iccnet.org > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Internet Community Church Ministries > Because of His Grace We Serve > http://www.iccnet.org > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > -- http://emptycrate.com Games, Programming, Travel & other stuff _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
