This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Computing:SoftwareLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Software. Microsoft:.NETMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toMicrosoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject .NET (assessed asHigh-importance).

Common language infrastructure(CLI)is a term which gives no results when run on theMicrosoft web site]. ButCommon language runtime is not much better (4 hits). AndCommon language runtime gives a lot of hits, but they seem to beJava related.

A general google search onCommon Language Infrastructure andCommon Language Runtime gives a considerable amount of results. But sorting out needs its time.

I would like to see an article which translates the Microsoft speak into commonly known computing terms. The stub above is a first attempt at this. Perhaps it should be moved to another heading. -- Kwaku

CLI as seen with the eyes of a Java proponent:http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html(link put here to consult for further work on the article)

I removed some stuff because it was copied without even some decent formatting fromhttp://hosting.msugs.ch/dotnetrox/vb/Ch01.html--Jan Hidders 20:47 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

One of the strengths of CLR seems to be that it allows lots of different languages to be integrated and call each others' code. The code to produce and use DLL assemblies in many languages is quite simple. Is there any similar "inter-language integration" layer in Linux, or in the open source world? I have used SWIG and Boost, however, I'm more asking whether it is possible to not merely export C++ code into various languages, but rather, to share code between pairs of arbitrary languages. For example, is it possible to take a CPAN Perl module and call it from Python, or export a Tcl module and a Ruby module and call each of these from clisp? If the necessary technology to do this does not exist, then I'd like to know that as well. Thanks.Connelly00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The easier part of the problem is the parameter-passing mechanism: different languages use different techniques to pass values or references to called methods. Some push only references, while others push values or references depending on the parameter type and options. So its a difficult problem even if the parameter types are limited to integers and reals. Stepping up the complexity a bit, consider dates: each language has its own internal representation of a date value that would be incompatible with that of another language. Decimal values, ditto. And when you get to passing references to structure memory like objects, forget it. Perl would have no way to interpret an instance of a Python object: the internal representation of that object is totally foreign to Perl.

COM and COBRA were earlier attempts to support inter-language calls by forcing representations into a commonly understood format. They've had limited success due to complexity and inherent limitations. COM is still used pretty commonly on MS platforms CORBA is the non-Windows implementation of similar technology, but I have the impression that is a failed technology. (I'm sure someone will disagree, and that's fine.)

Hope this helps.

Thanks, that does help. I noticed that if I google specific pairs of languages, such as Tcl+Python integration, I can often find mechanisms for working with the given two languages at once, such as[1]. Perhaps in the open source world, inter-language integration is typically done over the Web: via app-specific protocols, SOAP, CORBA, XML-RPC, .... That is a fine answer; I just wondered if I was naive and didn't "know" how inter-language integration was done in the OSS world. There are also some discontinued research projects likeILU andFlick which seem to be focused on this same goal.

Found what I was looking for. The open source world has copied Microsoft's OLE and COM with technologies such asKPart andBonobo. -Connelly23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article has no category. Maybe separateCategory:Microsoft .NET should be created? --Derbeth 19:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've put it in the already-existingCategory:.NET programming languages.··gracefool |☺ 05:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the CLR (Common Language Runtime) is not technically a virtual machine. It does not run IL code, it loads and compiles it. The architecture is designed to provide a platform-neutral layer similar to that provided by Java's Virtual Machine, but the mechanism is different.

I've repositioned the implementations section to logically follow Standardization and Licensing. A question regarding MS .NET FW there: why is it called 'commercial' if it's available for free download? --tyomitch08:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I labelled it as such because it is a heart of their commercial .NET offering, and to emphasize the fact that it's a closed-source implementation Microsoft uses for profit. Hope that makes some sort of sense. :) --Foofy18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address this on the project page, but the CLI is a spec, and the CLR is an implementation of CLI plus libraries, etc., so it makes more sense to put the implementations in the CLR article. --Foofy18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Foofy! Long time! Does Foofy got something to do with Footbal fan?! ;) I suggest that the section to be kept as it is and develop it in the CLR article. We can add later on a reference to that from here. Cheese --Svest18:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

This article says that the CLR "contains aspects outside the scope of the specification" however the CLR article says that the CLR is an implementation of the CLI. Those statements seem contradictory to me.76.87.181.19404:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some more information about the patents held on the Common Language Infrastructure? They're pretty significant for projects like DotGNU and Mono. Is there a chance these projects will one day be attacked my Microsoft and forced to stop?Herorev00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This open question was finally answered with Microsoft putting C# and the CLI under theMicrosoft Community Promise

There is still a lot of doubt over/room to misinterpret the CP, especially regarding Mono. The absolute statement that programming with it has been made completely safe is anything but definite, and should probably have a dubious tag. C# for instance is only protected by the standard for an older implementation, and the CP doesn't include quite a few things, like Windows Forms, needed for some functionality.Raider48007:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Microsoft and their partners hold patents for CLI, ECMA and ISO require that all patents essential to implementation be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms."

does that sentence make sense?—Precedingunsigned comment added by201.152.52.113 (talk)08:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pageCommon Language Specification linked to in the Overview has only the same information as the Overview's paragraph. Should the page be removed, with a redirect to the Overview?Also, should it have an inline link to MSDN's page onCommon Language Specification and/or thelink in the References section?Tagus (talk)05:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it. -MrOllie (talk)13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No Support For" is a bit misleading? Iron Python is a CLR implementation of Python, which is a Dynamic typed language. So I guess you don't need support for dynamic typed languages in order to support dynamic typed languages.

Whatever. It just doesn't seem like a clear statement.—Precedingunsigned comment added by203.206.162.148 (talk)07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page should mention the relationship between CLI and CLR.
Encyclopedant (talk)19:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bullet point under Implementations about DotGNU was added by181.20.28.146, whose edits to other pages were pretty much all vandalisms. This one doesn't seem like it is (their other vandalisms involved deleting chunks of text or adding gibberish), but I also don't know anything about DotGNU. It's just something to keep an eye out for.

PotatoCow25 (talk)02:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• Start-Class software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Start-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
• All Software articles
• All Computing articles
• Start-Class Microsoft articles
• Mid-importance Microsoft articles
• Start-Class .NET articles
• High-importance .NET articles
• WikiProject .NET articles
• WikiProject Microsoft articles