Talk:Common Intermediate Language

message: The notion of a common intermediate language is not specific to Microsoft's .Net;
this idea has been around since the time people tried to understand computation
and compilers. If anything, this article should be discussing things like UNCOL
as well, and Microsoft's CIL should be just one example. --Lingwitt (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Specific

message: I have never heard of the term "Machine Symbolic Intermediate Language".  Google and MSDN don't bring up any 1:1 matches.  Is there any evidence of this usage?
Vector4F 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. Perhaps this statement should be removed. There are enough acronyms in the world without people inventing new ones for the sake of it! Rickyp 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Machine Symbolic Intermediate Language?

message: I merged MSIL into this article basically by copy-pasting the MSIL article. Please make sure all the references to MSIL/CIL/IL within the text are correct. Tocharianne 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from MSIL 

message: I believe that .NET metadata needs to be merged into CIL. They are effectively the same concept. The .NET Metadata page has needed expert help on for some time, and being the expert that I am (pushing my ego), it would make sense to put into this page. ZacBowling (user|talk) 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal {{Anchors|Merger proposal|Merger_proposal}}

message: I think that we should keep this neutral regarding of implementations and let this article be written in the perspective of the standard. The same about other articles about this family of technologies. We should treat all implementations as equal compared to the standard. However, that does not exclude that we may compare those in each of those articles. What I mean is that we should not exclude other major implmentations like Mono. Robert Sundström (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The standard and perspectives 

message: I thought it would be better to handle NGEN as a separate thing because it is not a part of the standard. It is a .NET Framework utility. There is a separate article on that now (see Native Image Generator) I have changed the information in the article of origin to Ahead-of-time to make it neutral to any implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure. Robert Sundström (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral article 

message: There is now a listing of the instruction set: List of CIL instructions.
As with information about the syntax of the CIL; I have started working on a article that. A draft is available from  here. Robert Sundström (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax of CIL 

message: Hey, please keep calling this artikel SIL or better MSIL.
In programming-languages research, CIL is a well-established notion for the C Intermediate Language,
and the respective tool implementation. Reference:
G. C. Necula, S. McPeak, S. P. Rahul, and W. Weimer. CIL: Intermediate language
and tools for analysis and transformation of C programs. In Proc. CC, LNCS 2304,
pages 213–228. Springer, 2002.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~weimer/2006-655/reading/necula-cil.pdf
Perhaps the question is "what was first"? But since it is possible to simply use SKIL for that MS language ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.144.101 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIL stands for C Intermediate Language 

message: I disagree with the notion that CIL is the "lowest-level human-readable programming language" as asserted by the first sentence of the article. Just load any .NET assembly to a text editor and you'll see. What's human-readable is the ".NET assembly language", for lack of a better term, into which a tool like ildasm can disassemble the CIL code of an assembly.
CIL is a binary language for a hypothetical virtual-machine processor. To say that it's human-readable is analogous to saying that the Intel processor machine language is human-readable because it can be disassembled to human-readable Intel assembly language. The latter assertion is simply wrong. Hence CIL is NOT human-readable.  69.155.133.21 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIL is a binary language, NOT human-readable 

message: The example code is a piece of code whose intention is to print the prime numbers below 1000. The code has been copy paste from the java bytecode article, however in java "outer: for() { continue outer}" has a different meaning than c# "outer: for { goto outer }" in the java case the continue resumes the outermost for loop, while in c# it will restart the outer for loop from scratch. The program will not finish and print the prime numbers. The CIL code indeed gives the same behavior jumping to the beginning thereby reinitializing the counter i to 2. Although this has no relevance to the article I think the example code should have the correct intended behavior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.177.229 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in example code 

message: Since the switch from Geshi to Pygments for syntax highlighting (phab:T85794), support for 'cil' was unfortunately dropped, as can be seen with the plain text formatting on this page and others such as Assembly (CLI) and List of CIL instructions. If you want specialised 'cil' syntax highlight support again, it will need to be added to Pygments.   Alternatively, if there is another language which has similar syntax, we can add that as a fallback.  It looks like there are a few options, including 'cpp', 'csharp', etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  cil syntax highlighting lost 

message: "For the counterpart to compiled assembly in the Common Language Infrastructure, see Assembly (CLI)."
I think the disambiguation link at the top of the article is either plain wrong or poorly phrased.
My guess at the original intention of the link is:
"This article is about the text representation of CIL you get after you run a disassembler like ildasm. Binary CIL is the .NET counterpart to machine language in other environments. Machine language can be compiled or assembled from assembly language. For details of binary CIL, see the article describing .NET assembly". If that is the intent, it's wrong and should be deleted. This article is the right place to describe CIL. Assemblies contain CIL, metadata, resources and a manifest. An assembly is not the same thing as CIL and this article should continue to exist in its own right in Wikipedia.
I wonder if whoever wrote the link was confusing the .NET concept of an assembly with "assembly language" in other environments. They are not the same thing - it might have been better for Microsoft to use a different term in the first place.
If the original creator of the link meant something else, the wording should be clarified. I can't think of another interpretation.
Paul Foxworthy (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing disambiguation link