[sword-devel] SWIG Bindings
gregmarine at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 19:14:52 MST 2006
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:
On 2/6/06, Wade Maxfield <wmaxfield at gmail.com> 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. (
> 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
> 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 2.0library.)
> 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.
> On 2/6/06, Greg Hellings < greg.hellings at gmail.com> 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 < lefticus at gmail.com> 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 at 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 at 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 at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Internet Community Church Ministries
Because of His Grace We Serve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel