Why Rotor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Hi there,

I had some questions in mind. Why rotor if there is already .NET Framework?

Is it rotor allows us to see some source code part of .NET implementation?

If it is, we can use reflector to see the source code for .net framework
right?

Any help? Thanks.
 
To achieve ECMA standardization of C# and the CLI Microsft had to create two implementations: one is the CLR; one is ROTOR.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/<[email protected]>

Hi there,

I had some questions in mind. Why rotor if there is already .NET Framework?

Is it rotor allows us to see some source code part of .NET implementation?

If it is, we can use reflector to see the source code for .net framework
right?

Any help? Thanks.
--
Regards,
Chua Wen Ching :)

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004



[microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp]
 
Chua Wen Ching said:
Hi there,

I had some questions in mind. Why rotor if there is already .NET
Framework?
Click to expand...

To a large extent: political reasons: Shared Source vs. Open Source.
Is it rotor allows us to see some source code part of .NET implementation?
Yes.

If it is, we can use reflector to see the source code for .net framework
right?
Click to expand...

No. Reflector can only disassemble IL code.
Many interesting parts (e.g. the GC, or the JIT) are written in native code,
and can't be viewed with Reflector.

Niki
 
To achieve ECMA standardization of C# and the CLI Microsft had to create
two implementations:
one is the CLR; one is ROTOR.
Click to expand...

I suspect both are basically the same. I think MS firstly created a basic
unoptimized version (ROTOR), then they optimized it and stuffed MS-internal
knowledge in it and the result was the CLR, right?
 
Not quite - Rotor was a fork in the .NET code tree from what I hear. Then they took the stuff they wanted to keep propriatory out like the JIT and GC and left a simplified version.

Rotor code has stayed pretty much at 1.0 level apart from bug fixes. But I hear they are looking at doing a new cut for .NET 2.0

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/ said:
To achieve ECMA standardization of C# and the CLI Microsft had to create two implementations:
one is the CLR; one is ROTOR.
Click to expand...

I suspect both are basically the same. I think MS firstly created a basic
unoptimized version (ROTOR), then they optimized it and stuffed MS-internal
knowledge in it and the result was the CLR, right?

--
cody

Freeware Tools, Games and Humour
http://www.deutronium.de.vu || http://www.deutronium.tk



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004



[microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp]
 
Back
Top