There are instructions here to create a C# assembly using the SimMetrics library. The link they provided to this library is at SourceForge. It looks like the most recent version of the SimMetrics library was created in Java. Is it possibly to compile java code and then reference it in C# to be used as an assembly in SQL Server 2008?
The best you can do is
compile the java as J# (now obsolete and largely unsupported) with minimal code changes.
this is very dependent on how much of the libraries are used.
convert the code to c# (idiomatic or otherwise)
this can sometimes be fairly easy on highly mathematical code. As an advantage the java code likely assumes 16 bit unicode as well.
use something like IKVM to host the java byte code within the CLR
this may be outright impossible with the sql server hosted runtime, certainly I would think the performance would be poor (since you would have to 'thunk' across the hosting barrier on each call.
The SF page strongly implies that there is both a java and a .net release.
Here's the latest .net release and documentation
However based on the read me file in that
This is an updated version of the original .NET implementation and not a conversion of the newest Java Code.
The .Net implementation is largely c# so you could diff the recent changes in the java implementation then attempt to recreate them in the .Net code. Since the conversion to c# seems to be largely a direct copy with only basic consideration given to idiomatic c# (camel casing, properties and parameter names) you stand a good chance of being able to do this.
If you do consider submitting the changes as a patch, this would give you a chance of getting someone else to validate your changes and may jump start the .Net side of the project to be kept more closely in sync in future.
Related
After days of experimenting that only led to partial success, I'd like to ask whether I have any chance or I'll invariably end up in a dead end. I have an UWP C# App, the usual framework, planned to be distributed in the Windows Store. And I also have a data package written in C++ (mostly C) that I used earlier. The old, non-managed code doesn't call any Windows API at all, it's just a data format package. But I need to access it directly from the C# side, and its most important type is authored as a value struct, with many overloaded operators (and this is good so, that approach is just perfect for the application domain).
From a WPF application, I wouldn't have any problem at all, a C++/CLI wrapper of a value struct, exposing everything. But the UWP app doesn't want to do the same. If I use the same C++/CLI wrapper, although I can get it to compile by itself, the UWP project will flat out refuse to reference the C++/CLI project.
I also tried the newer C++/CX flavor but that comes with many limitations, no specialized constructors, no overloading. It seems to be sandboxed much more than I'd need.
Is there any solution I missed? Maybe still using the C++/CLI (which has the benefit of being already written :-) ) somehow from under an UWP application?
Starting with version 1803 you should have access to a complete C++ implementation
C++/WinRT is an entirely standard modern C++17 language projection
for Windows Runtime
If you want to consume C++ code from C#, then you probably want to compile it as a Windows Runtime Component, as those can be consumed in any other UWP-supported language.
I think this is demonstrated in this documentation, even through the app consuming it seems to be in C++
In the end, I succeeded. There is an intermediate helper class (not a struct because of the inherent limitations) written in C++/CX, and the actual struct I use is defined in C#, using this intermediate.
The error messages in the process were mostly related to the underlying code being very old, C, not even C++, with all the linking and externing stuff involved. But no matter how old it is, it still works...
I'm looking at Script#, JSIL and SharpKit as a tool to use to compile C# to Javascript, so I can program the client side functions of AJAX using C# in Visual Studio.
What are the pros and cons of each JSIL, Script# and SharpKit?
My project is a MVC4 project using razor engine and C#, if it matters.
If you're looking to integrate directly with an MVC project, something like Script# or SharpKit or something is probably your best bet - I know for a fact that Script# has stuff built in to make that sort of integration easier, so I would start there.
If you do want to try using JSIL, it probably has the core features you need, but things that you might want - like visual studio integration, automated deployment, etc - are not there. At present it is primarily targeted at cross-compilation of applications, so it does a good job of that but not as good a job of other use cases.
I'll try to give a summary of reasons why you might want to consider JSIL over those other alternatives - I can't really comment on the pros and cons of those alternatives in depth since I haven't used them:
JSIL has extremely wide support for the features available in C# 4. Notable ones (either because other tools don't support them, or they're complicated) include:
dynamic, yield, Structs, ref / out, Delegates, Generics, Nullables, Interfaces, and Enums.
Some of the above, of course, don't have complete support - to get an idea of things that absolutely will work, you can look at the test cases - each one is a small self-contained .cs file that is tested to ensure that JSIL and native C# produce the same output.
The reason for this extensive support is that my goal is for JSIL to enable you to translate a completely unmodified C# application to working JS. For all the demos up on the JSIL site, this is true, and I have a few nearly finished ports of larger real games in the wings for which this is also true.
Another reason is that JSIL makes it relatively straightforward for your C# and your JavaScript to talk.
All your C# types and methods are exposed via an interface that is as javascript-friendly as possible. The JS versions have basic overload resolution and dispatch so that native C# interfaces are callable from script code as if they were native JS in most cases. You don't have to take any steps to specifically tag methods you wish to expose to JS, or give them special names, or anything like that unless you want to.
When you want to call out from C# to JS, you can do it a few ways:
JSIL.Verbatim.Expression lets you insert raw javascript directly into the translated version of a function.
JSIL.Builtins.Global can be combined with dynamic and var to write JavaScript-like code directly in your C# function bodies.
The JSReplacement attribute can be used to replace invocations of a C# function with a parameterized JavaScript expression.
All of the above features can be combined with JSIL's mechanism for altering type information, called Proxies, to allow you to alter the type information of libraries you use, even if you don't have source code, in order to map their methods to JavaScript you've written.
And finally, C# methods that aren't translated to JS produce an empty method called an External that you can then replace with JavaScript at runtime to make it work again. Any External methods that you haven't replaced produce clear warning message at runtimes so you know what's missing.
JSIL makes aggressive use of type information, along with metadata you provide, to try and safely optimize the JavaScript it generates for you. In some cases this can produce better equivalent JavaScript than you would have written by hand - the main area where this is true at present is code that uses structs, but it also can apply in other cases.
For example, in this code snippet, JSIL is able to statically determine that despite the number of struct copies implied by the code, none of the copies are actually necessary for the code to behave correctly. The resulting JavaScript ends up not having any unnecessary copies, so it runs much faster than what you'd get if you naively translated the semantics of the original C#. This is a nice middle ground between writing the naive struct-based thing (Vector2s everywhere!) and going completely nuts with named return value optimization by hand, which, as I've described in the past, is pretty error-prone.
Okay, now for some downsides. Don't consider this list exhaustive:
Large portions of the .NET BCL don't have implementations provided for you by JSIL. In the future this may be addressed by translating the entire Mono mscorlib to JavaScript, but I don't have that working well enough to advocate it as an immediate solution. (This is fine for games so far, since they don't use much of the BCL.) This issue is primarily due to the IP problems related to translating Microsoft's mscorlib - if I could do that legally, I'd be doing it right now - it worked the last time I tested it.
As mentioned above, no visual studio integration. JSIL is pretty easy to use - you can feed it a .sln file to get a bunch of .js outputs automatically, and configure it automatically with a configuration file next to the project - but it's nowhere near as polished or integrated as say, Script#.
No vendor or support staff. If you want a bug fixed yesterday or you're having issues, I'm pretty much your only bet at present (though there are a few prolific contributors helping make things better, and more are always welcome!)
JavaScript performance is a goddamn labyrinth full of invisible land mines. If you just want apps to work, you probably won't have any issues here, but if like me you're trying to make real games run fast in browsers, JavaScript will make your life hell and in some cases JSIL will make it worse. The only good thing I can say here is that I'm working on it. :)
JavaScript minifiers and optimizers like Closure are explicitly not supported, because they require your code generator to jump through a bunch of hoops. I could see this being a real blocker depending on how you intend to use your code.
The static analyzer is still kind of fragile and there are still gaps in the language support. Each big application I port using JSIL usually reveals one or two bugs in JSIL - not huge game breakers, but ones that definitely break a feature or make things run slow.
Hope this information is helpful! Thanks for your interest.
Script# pros:
Free
Open source
Generates clean JavaScript
Script# cons:
Supports a subset of C# 2.0 language only
Can be compiled only in a separate project, cannot mix / re-use code between client and server
Low frequency of version updates
Does not offer support
Limited 3rd party library support, C# API is different than JavaScript API.
Not open source
Debugging in JavaScript only
SharpKit pros:
Commercial product
Supports full C# 4.0 language
High frequency of version updates
Support is available
Client / server code can be mixed and re-used within the same project
Extensive 3rd party library support, maintained as open-source - C# API matches exactly to JavaScript API
Supports basic C# debugging for Chrome browsers
Generates clean JavaScript
SharpKit cons:
Has a free version with no time limit, but limited to small / open-source projects
Not open source (only libraries are open-source)
JSIL pros:
Free
Open-source
JSIL cons:
Converts from IL (intermediate language), not from C#, which means a lower abstraction layer since code is already low-level.
Complex generated JavaScript code - almost like IL, hard to read and debug
Answers to feedbacks:
Kevin: JSIL output is not bad, it's simply generated to achieve full .NET behavior, much like SharpKit's CLR mode. On the other hand, SharpKit supports native code generation, in which any native JavaScript code can be generated from C#, exactly as it would have written by hand.
Sample of SharpKit's clean generated JavaScript code:
http://sharpkit.net/Wiki/Using_SharpKit.wiki
Developer can choose to create more complex code generation and gain more features, like support for compile-time method overloads. When specified, SharpKit generates method suffixes to overloaded methods.
Script# requires .NET 4 in order to run, but it does not support full C# 4.0 syntax, like Generics, ref and out parameters, namespace aliases, etc...
Another alternative is WootzJs. Full Disclosure, I am its author.
WootzJs is open-source and strives to be a fairly lightweight cross-compiler that allows for all the major C# language features.
Notable Language Features Supported:
yield statements (generated as an efficient state machine)
async/await methods (generated as a state machine like the C# compiler)
ref and out parameters
expression trees
lambdas and delegates (with proper capturing of this)
generics support in both the compiler and the runtime (invalidly casting to T will throw a cast exception)
C# semantics (as opposed to Javascript semantics) for closed varaibles
It is implemented using Roslyn, which means it will be first in line to take
advantage of future language improvements, since those will now be implemented via Roslyn itself. It provides a custom version of mscorlib so you know exactly what library functionality is actually available to you in your scripts.
What Are its Downsides?
The Javascript is not intended to look "pretty". It is clearly machine generated, though individual methods should be easy to reason about by looking at them.
Because of its extensive support for core libraries and reflection, the generated output is not the smallest on the block. Minification should produce an ~100k JS file, but minification is not yet supported.
WootzJs unabashedly pollutes native types with functions to encapsulate behavior for those types that would only be found in C#. For example, all the methods of System.String are added to the native Javascript String type.
Little support for binding to 3rd-party Javascript libraries presently exist. (Currently only jQuery)
Comparisons with Other Cross-Compilers:
Script# is very stable and has extensive integration with 3rd party Javascript libraries. Furthermore, it has excellent Visual Studio integration, and it provides a custom implementation of mscorlib. This means that you know precisely what functionality has actually been implemented at the tooling level. If, for example, Console.Write() is not implemented, that method will not be available in your editor.
However, due to its custom parser, it is still stuck in C# 2.0 (without even the generics found in that version of C#). This means that the modern C# developer is giving up an enormous set of language features that most of us depend on without reservation -- particularly the aforementioned generics in addition to lambdas and LINQ. This makes Script# essentially a non-starter for many developers.
JSIL is an extremely impressive work that cross-compiles IL into Javascript. It is so robust it can easily handle the cross-compilation of large 3d video games. The downside is that because of its completeness the resultant Javascript files are enormous. If you just want mscorlib.dll and System.dll, it's about a 50MB download. Furthermore, this project is really not designed to be used in the context of a web application, and the amount of effort required to get started is a bit daunting.
This toolkit too implements a custom mscorlib, again allowing you to know what capabilities are available to you. However, it has poor Visual Studio integration, forcing you to create all the custom build steps necessary to invoke the compiler and copy the output to the desired location.
SharpKit: this commercial product strives to provide support for most of the C# 4.0 language features. It generally
succeeds and there's a decent chance this product will meet your needs. It is lightweight (small .JS files), supports modern C# language features (generics, LINQ, etc.) and is usually reliable. It also has a large number of bindings for 3rd party Javascript librarires. However, there are a surprising number of edge cases that you will invariably encounter that are not supported.
For example, the type system is shallow and does not support representing generics or arrays (i.e. typeof(Foo[]) == typeof(Bar[]), typeof(List<string>) == typeof(List<int>)). The support for reflection is limited, with various member types incapable of supporting attributes. Expression tree support is non-existent, and the yield implementation is inefficient (no state machine). Also, a custom mscorlib is not available, and script C# files and normal C# files are intermingled in your projects, forcing you to decorate each and every script file with a [JsType] attribute to distinguish them from normally compiled classes.
We have SharpKit for two years and I must say that's upgraded the way we write code.
The pros as I see them:
The code is much more structured - we can now developed infrastrcture just like we did in C# without "banging our heads" with prototype.
It is very easy to refactor
We can use Code Snippets which results in better productivity and less development time
You can control the way the JS is rendered (you have several modes to choose from).
We can debug our C# code in the browser (Currently supported on Chrome only, but still :->)
Great support! If you send them a query you get a response very fast.
Support a large number of libraries & easily extensible
The cons:
The documentation is a bit poor, however once you get a hang of it you'll boost your development.
Glad if this could help!
For ScriptSharp, this stackoverflow link could be of help.
What advantages can ScriptSharp bring to my tool kit?
If you have any SVN tool, please download a sample from https://github.com/kevingadd/JSIL, this is a working source code and can help you go miles.
Why C# is an open standard but .NET is not? What is the point in this? Why Microsoft decide to open only some part of their .NET?
Various parts of the .NET runtime are indeed standardised by ECMA just like C# - CIL, the CLI, the CLS.
.NET is the runtime and C# is the language. C# can be compiled and run on other runtimes, such as Mono. I am actually not aware of any other runtimes besides Mono, but since the spec for C# is open, you could read it and make your own runtime. ;)
C#, like Java, C, C++, etc. is just a language definition. In and of itself, it does nothing. It defines the means by which a user can define a program or procedure and interface with external libraries.
The .NET framework, on the other hand, is not a language. It's a class library and development framework.
Actually, there is an open standard (ECMA 335 for the runtime api instead of ECMA 334 for the language).
Going beyond this, the source code for Microsoft's implementation of .Net is available and there are multiple separate implementations (the most prominent of which by far is mono).
There is some additional concern about patent encumbrance. However, Microsoft has also issued a legally binding and irrevocable community promise on the .Net platform that covers both specifications (a lot of people miss the legally binding part).
I assume you mean the framework. I guess they want to maintain control over the library implementation on Windows. There is nothing stopping someone from implementing a call-compatible version of all or part of the framework based on their own source as was done by Mono.
I currently use Python for most of my programming projects (mainly rapid development of small programs and prototypes). I'd like to invest time in learning a language that gives me the flexibility to use various Microsoft tools and APIs whenever the opportunity arises. I'm trying to decide between IronPython and C#. Since Python is my favorite programming language (mainly because of its conciseness and clean syntax), IronPython sounds like the ideal option. Yet after reading about it a little bit I have several questions.
For those of you who have used IronPython, does it ever become unclear where classic Python ends and .NET begins? For example, there appears to be significant overlap in functionality between the .NET libraries and the Python standard library, so when I need to do string operations or parse XML, I'm unclear which library I'm supposed to use. Also, I'm unclear when I'm supposed to use Python versus .NET data types in my code. For example, which of the following would I be using in my code?
d = {}
or
d = System.Collections.Hashtable()
(By the way, it seems that if I do a lot of things like the latter I might lose some of the conciseness, which is why I favor Python in the first place.)
Another issue is that a number of Microsoft's developer tools, such as .NET CF and Xbox XNA, are not available in IronPython. Are there more situations where IronPython wouldn't give me the full reach of C#?
I've built a large-scale application in IronPython bound with C#.
It's almost completely seamless. The only things missing in IronPython from the true "python" feel are the C-based libraries (gotta use .NET for those) and IDLE.
The language interacts with other .NET languages like a dream... Specifically if you embed the interpreter and bind variables by reference.
By the way, a hash in IronPython is declared:
d = {}
Just be aware that it's actually an IronPython.Dict object, and not a C# dictionary. That said, the conversions often work invisibly if you pass it to a .NET class, and if you need to convert explicitly, there are built-ins that do it just fine.
All in all, an awesome language to use with .NET, if you have reason to.
Just a word of advice: Avoid the Visual Studio IronPython IDE like the plague. I found the automatic line completions screwed up on indentation, between spaces and tabs. Now -that- is a difficult-to-trace bug inserted into code.
I'd suggest taking a look at Boo [http://boo.codehaus.org/], a .NET-based language with a syntax inspired by Python, but which provides the full range of .NET 3.5 functionality.
IronPython is great for using .NET-centric libraries -- but it isn't well-suited to creating them due to underlying differences in how the languages do typing. As Boo does inference-based typing at compile time except where duck typing is explicitly requested (or a specific type is given by the user), it lets you build .NET-centric libraries easily usable from C# (and other languages') code, which IronPython isn't suitable for; also, as it has to do less introspection at runtime, Boo compiles to faster code.
Is there any work being done to create a C# compiler to produce native exe's? e.g. the output is a native exe and NOT a .NET assembly.
Why don't you try NGen. For exemple Paint.NET use nGen to create native images after installation.
If you want a standalone deployment (i.e. without needing the framework), there are a few options - see here. However, I'm not aware of anything that will reliably produce purely unmanaged code. What is the use-case you have in mind? For embedded etc there is micro-framework, CF, etc.
There is such solution for Mono, this is 'mkbundle' - static linking instead of using JIT/CLR/GAC, I guess
You'd still have to provide the libraries in some form so either you'd still have to have a runtime installed, or the native exe would have to be huge.
There are two active projects. They are geared toward CIL-based operating systems, but the current iteration of MOSA Compiler Framework runs on Windows (unit tests etc.) and has limited boot support. Cosmos used to have a Windows architecture and a few plugs, but they don't do Windows any more - only booting into a CIL environment.
Cosmos is much futher along however, they have pretty much nailed object support. MOSA is only bare-metal (static methods) for now - although it is done the 'proper' way and well unit-tested (and I think making faster progress). Give it a few more months and then go back and have a look.
Niether has a JIT at the moment (which doesn't matter since you don't want one). It is all compiled to machine code ahead of time.
MOSA (Compiler Framework)
COSMOS (IL2CPU)
.NET linker
You might find this interesting to read as well: .NET Internals and Native Compiling.
Note that for the reflection to work a lot of information about the code will always have to present.