5 ms·
I wouldn't go calling .NET a "native SDK" for Windows. That's like saying Java's a native SDK for Windows or macOS or Linux.
by coldacid 5y ago
I wouldn't go calling .NET a "native SDK" for Windows. That's like saying Java's a native SDK for Windows or macOS or Linux.
- gavinray 5y agoWhy? > "That's like saying Java's a native SDK for Windows or macOS or Linux." Not an unreasonable claim if you're packaging with Graal's native-image tbh. Dotnet has NativeAOT, and JVM languages have GraalVM (with Kotlin Native too for Kotlin, and Scala Native too for Scala). What you get when building an application with Dotnet Native, GraalVM native-image, Kotlin Native, Scala Native, etc, is architecture-dependent native code identical to compiling with "CC myfile.cpp" So I don't find that unreasonable tbh. If I can use NativeAOT/Dotnet Native Exports on .NET/GraalVM on the JVM to do this, as well as export a static/dynamic lib with a C ABI that I can use on whatever OS from C/C++/Rust code or whatever, I really don't know what else you need to call something "native" tbh.