[leam_lidara]

Hello everyone on this forum! I have a problem with C# Programming. I have create application using Visual Studio 2010 on C# Programming so it need NetFrame Work for running it. But I want to know that how to compile it for none NetFrame work for running it. Please help me.

Thank in advance.

[simonbenyo]

You Can't ompile without the .net framework but you can compile it without VS2010 With C# iCompiler

[ArkPhaze]

C# is a .NET language, you can't compile it without the .NET framework...

[Frooxius]

Technically, it is possible to compile C# without needing .NET framework, which of course means, that you won't be able to use any part of the .NET framework in the program. C# is simply a language, collection of syntax and semantics, whereas .NET framework is a set of libraries, so a compiler that would produce native code without any relation to .NET would be possible to rig up (and maybe a few bits of .NET implemented also as statically linked libraries for example), the question is, why would you even want to do such a thing?

If it's an issue of having to have .NET framework installed to run your applications, there are some solutions that allow you to link your application statically with the .NET libraries you use and produce native code for some platform (instead of CIL, which is JIT compiled only prior to execution), however resulting files are of course bigger and considering, that .NET is on many computers today and you can install it freely, I don't also see why you would want to do that. Though advantage of this approach is better protection against reverse engineering.

If you want to try what I mentioned, you might try to look into this: http://www.remotesoft.com/linker/intro.html Or Google something similar, there's a bunch of such projects, but no guarantees.

Another reason I can think of is that you want to port it to other platforms and still use .NET framework. In that case, it also possible to compile it, without using Microsoft's .NET framework implementation. Try look into the Mono projects, which is an OpenSource and cross-platform (it runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Android, IOS and probably more) implementation of .NET framework according to the specification. They say it's feature complete for C# 3.0 (and lower) and it's a solid project, so you can certainly give it a go, if you don't wanna be tied to Windows platform.
http://www.mono-project.com

[ArkPhaze]

Of course, but it was built by Microsoft as their .NET programming language, so would you really consider that you're dealing with C# if you were able to use it without a .NET framework? Consider that.

It's not a language that revolves around non .NET methods, it was built to recognize those methods.

the question is, why would you even want to do such a thing?

Yes

The only reason why I don't care for people that criticize the .NET framework is because I am only really interested in Windows. I have knowledge of Linux, and even Mac, but I hate Mac, and Linux never really interested me, even though i've been on Arch, Mint, Fedora and a couple others including that over-popularized Ubuntu, which most branch off of anyways.

I only develop for Windows, and .NET is becomming more of a requirement anyways for the trend Windows is headed.

Getting into some Azure stuff though with "cloud computing" and I find that fairly interesting

I see it this way though, if you don't want the .NET framework limitation, then learn another language that was built to not be dependant on it. Java, C, C++ if you don't use .NET methods are all good choices. Delphi would even work as well, although it's not as common.

[Frooxius]

It's not a language that revolves around non .NET methods, it was built to recognize those methods.

Err, what's this supposed to mean? How does a language that is basically collection of syntax and semantics "recognizes" specific methods? If you slap some static library to a C++ program for example, it will also "recognize" them, which sounds a bit awkward to me. It's simply a bunch of code that you can call from your program and use. If you put that way, then you won't be able to call it from your program and use it... or you can substitute it with something else.

You could leave the C# syntax, but strip .NET libraries (classes, methods, interfaces...) and provide your own set of libraries for example, at least for the parts of the syntax that are more tied to .NET methods and substitute them with your own library.

Just look at the C# ECMA specification of the language, if you implement all that and use your own libraries for example for Array datatype (or even implement them as C style arrays and slap some library methods somewhere in the code able to operate with these just as the specification describes).

Additionally, allow me to quote Herbert Schildt, author of some best-seller programming books, who also cooperated with some folks from Microsoft on book C# - Complete Specification:

How C# Relates to the .NET Framework
Although C# is a computer language that can be studied on its own, it has a special
relationship to its runtime environment, the .NET Framework. The reason for this is
twofold. First, C# was initially designed by Microsoft to create code for the .NET

Framework. Second, the libraries used by C# are the ones defined by the .NET Framework.
Thus, even though it is theoretically possible to separate C# the language from the .NET
environment, in practice the two are closely linked. Because of this, it is important to have a
general understanding of the .NET Framework and why it is important to C#.

C# can be therefore implemented on its own, just the way I described and still follow the official standardized specification, so it could be called C#, it would simply use alternative libraries (with your own structure functions, or whatever you want), instead of .NET.

I hope this clarifies my statement that you can separate C# and .NET and you would still be dealing with C#. Again, there's a question if it's good for anything, as .NET is quite useful library and if it's not enough, you can always write your own classes and methods, or possibly external libraries in C/C++/et cetera

[ArkPhaze]

Err, what's this supposed to mean? How does a language that is basically collection of syntax and semantics "recognizes" specific methods?

Use your brain here, are you just trying to prove me wrong by trying to twist my wording and logic around to make yourself look smarter by any chance, or what's the deal?

If it didn't recognize the System methods for .NET through the syntax, it obviously would not work if you tried to use those methods. And this is not C++ we are talking about which is a little more independent than a language like C# (by default).

It recognizes the libraries built for it by Microsoft, which is pretty much for the most part .NET.

You should take a closer look at the definition of "revolves" for the context I put it in. Just because something revolves around a central "something" doesn't mean it has to stay that way in the world of English anyways. It's unheard of for planets (as far as I know, but that's not my specialty nor field of interest). It revolves around .NET though because Microsoft built it that way. In terms of what I wrote, it's nothing that deviates from what the quote you just posted is saying to me either.

What I REALLY meant to say, was that nobody in the right mind would go ahead and build their own libraries just to say that they can use C# without .NET. Everyone that I know would just choose a language already suitable for it.

[Frooxius]

PhazeShift: I am using my brain, thank you very much. You don't have to start insults when someone doesn't understand your wording, I was simply stating my viewpoint, you could've explained yourself without degrading personal statements, so please do that next time and don't take stuff too personally. Notice how I didn't say a single thing about you and kept talking simply about the statements (again, not you), so please do the same and don't get personal.

I dunno why, but some people think that when they possibly say something wrong (or someone thinks they might say something wrong, I can be wrong as well, so you can clarify your viewpoint), it automatically means they're bad/stupid/whatever. That's not true at all (it can be true, but it also cannot), please remember that.

Additionally, language itself doesn't really recognize system methods and classes and routines trough syntax, or better to say, it doesn't recognize JUST these trough syntax. Read the ECMA (or any other official) language specification I linked, it doesn't show any special syntax for .NET libraries that would be unusable for any other, for example defined by you. It provides a way to generally specify a method call for example and it's up to the language run time / compiler to go and look for the given method in all defined methods (which can include .NET ones) and make a reference to it (link it, statically, dynamically, or sometimes even place the body at the place if it's an inline one or some optimizations are enabled).

[1234hotmaster]

[1llusion]

Phaze, Frooxi, stop it. You don't want me to take any actions against your accounts.