4 ms·
To be pedantic, it wouldn't be "application/csharp". By the time it's compiled to MSIL bytecode it doesn't matter if it was C#, VB, F# or whatever. "application
by StrawberryFrog 15y ago
To be pedantic, it wouldn't be "application/csharp". By the time it's compiled to MSIL bytecode it doesn't matter if it was C#, VB, F# or whatever. "application/MSIL" is what I'd say.
I can imagine it, and I guess my browsers already have three VM/Runtimes in them (JavaScript, Flash, Silverlight) but it feels so inelegantly top-heavy to have lots more.
- thepumpkin1979 15y agoRight, call me silly but I'm honoring the "Right-click->View Source" spirit here, I don't know about you but I feel more confortable knowing that my browser is downloading source code and compiling or interpreting than downloading some kind of binary to execute, even if you call it "intermediate code", "byte code" "almost-there-machine-code" or whatever, it's still binary stuff. I get your point though.
- StrawberryFrog 15y agoI agree, source is better. But. Flash isn't served as source, is it? And JS is often minified/obfuscated. Sure you can run that through a tool to get back the source (sans comments and long variable names) but you can do just that with MSIL bytecode too.
- thepumpkin1979 15y agoYep, Agree. Then we will see how additional tabs emerge in Firebug and Chrome Developer Tools, I can see them already: "IL View", ".NET Refactor", "JSIL View" hehe.