Found an interesting piece of information related to .NET GC.
This is about preserving content as there is a lot of link rot now. I will paste the content along with the source URL:
- Started with this: https://twitter.com/rainerjoswig/status/1264664590853562368
- Which linked to https://web.archive.org/web/20150307034829/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/patrick_dussud/archive/2006/11/21/how-it-all-started-aka-the-birth-of-the-clr.aspx
Hello everyone, I am the Lead Architect of the CLR/UIFX group and the Chief Architect of the .NET Frameworks. I was thinking about what I should put in the first entry of my blog… as one of the founders of the CLR I thought it would be interesting to give you some history of how CLR was born in my blog’s intro entry.
Before the CLR I was working on JVM. When Mike Toutonghi, Peter Kukol, Anders Hejlsberg, and I realized that the JVM would not give us the flexibility to innovate in the places we cared about – support for other languages, deep interop with COM and unmanaged code, extensive frameworks to expose MS technology – we decided to join force with the COM team and form a new group, tentatively named COM 2.0.
We soon disagreed about object management, specifically about explicit management like COM (AddRef/Release) versus automatic management (Garbage Collection), we decided to form 2 groups: COM+ and CLR. This marked the birth of the CLR group.
Early on, we were joined by a meta data group who had been prototyping some meta data schema for the C++ compiler. Peter Kukol and the C++ group collaborated on the IL instruction set. I designed the architecture of the runtime and wrote the Garbage Collector (and yes the GC prototype was was written in Common Lisp first and I wrote a translator to convert it to C++).
Soon we had all the fundamental components of a runtime, some runtime helpers for the base classes (String and Object), and a new cool language: C#. We were in the business to build the full fledge CLR and the Framework.
So there you go, for those curious minds this is how CLR was started.
In the next blog entry I will be writing about server modeling. Also feel free to let me know if there are specific topics you want to see me write about.
And then another one from the same blog: https://web.archive.org/web/20140506034645/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/patrick_dussud/archive/2006/12/01/aggregated-response-to-comments.aspx
I am aggregating the responses to the comments about my first post:
About Common Lisp and Lisp in general:
I have worked on Lisp for many years, and I think it has strength that sets it apart from other dynamic languages. My favorite is the fact that you can extend the Lisp language to create your own special purpose language in a very natural way using macros. Lisp has a very simple syntax (prefix notation). As long as your extensions adhere to that syntax, it is possible to make them seamless. Arguably, CLOS is a very large extension to Common Lisp, even though you don’t need *any* compiler changes to do a pretty good job implementing it on top of regular Common Lisp.
Last year, I gave a talk at the International Lisp Conference about the need for Lisp to integrate with the CLR (and / or Java). See the following URL
About JVM limitations:
Well, the JVM has technical limitations that were hard for us to solve: the JVM is designed to execute type safe languages only and we wanted to executed unsafe C++ as well. Solving this would have required the support of the entire Java community and this didn’t make sense for the community at large.
Other limitation were contractual. We discovered that the compliance test suite didn’t allow us to extend the existing Java classes so it was hard for us to reflect the Windows platform with more fidelity.
We also discovered that it was very hard to negociate for a different / better Java to Native code interop layer. This was both a technical and political issue: the interop layer is heavily archicture specific – it is hard to make it universal aka Run anywhere- and it is quite visible to programmers unlike an extension library on the side.
About the rationale for our design decisions:
First and foremost, we wanted to support safe execution of type safe languages . We designed a security model to separate trusted code from untrusted code and app domains to isolate code execution contexts from each other. We also wanted to be able to recompile an existing C++ application with an extra /CLR flag and run this application under the CLR. These high level goals lead us to where we are now. We briefly thought about a small GCed runtime for C++ but because C++ isn’t type safe, it wasn’t that interesting to us. Also you are severely limited in the ability to manage memory automatically for a language which can “hide” references in other datatypes or even by adding extra bits to the reference and such clever tricks.