Talk:Common Language Infrastructure

message: I noticed that the article has no category. Maybe separate :Category:Microsoft .NET should be created? --Derbeth 19:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it in the already-existing :Category:.NET programming languages. ··gracefool |☺ 05:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: 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? --tyomitch 08:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. :) -- Foofy 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations 

message: 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. -- Foofy 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 -- Svest 18:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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. 76.87.181.194 04:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations / CLI and CLR 

message: 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? Herorev 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This open question was finally answered with Microsoft putting C# and the CLI under the Microsoft 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. Raider480 07:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  patents 

message: 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?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence 

message: The page Common 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 the link in the References section?Tagus (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Language Specification 

message: "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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic typed languages 

message: The page should mention the relationship between CLI and CLR.
Encyclopedant (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention CLR