I need a real C# native compiler

Question

1.36/5 (4 votes)

See more:

Hello people,

Does anyone know any C# native compiler?

I read about ngen.exe BUT it still needs the .Net Framework... useless.

Everybody needs a REAL C# native compiler

Help!

Thanks a lot

Posted 12-Mar-11 6:08am

pancho2413

Add a Solution

Comments

Toli Cuturicu 14-Mar-11 18:50pm

I need lots of stuff too... :-)

7 solutions

Solution 5

Try this link:

http://blog.prabir.me/post/LLVM-e28093-Native-C-Compiler.aspx[^]

It is supposed to remove reliance on the .NET Framework by compiling to LLVM. To me this isn't much better a solution bit if I may suggest something it would be to rewrite your programs from C# to C or C++.

This may be your best bet because in C# the garbage collection, resource management is handled by the framework and as such would have to be implemented in your native app somehow.

There are just so many variables to consider that a native C# compiler would have to know how to handle these resources at compile-time rather than during run-time when the framework would normally do the work.

Posted 12-Jun-11 10:56am

Keith.Badeau

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Sep-14 15:36pm

I did not try it, but this project looks very interesting at first glance. My 5.
—SA

Solution 9

I have recently finished the C# (MSIL) compiler to LLVM ByteCode which allows to compile C# directly into native code as C++ compiler does.

C# native compiler (Il2Bc) - https://csnative.codeplex.com/

Posted 9-Oct-14 23:30pm

ASD77

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

OriginalGriff · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-12T09:40:00

Solution 1

AFAIK there is no such animal. Since it's (Microsoft gestated) birth, C# has been closely integrated with .NET (also Microsoft gestated) and thus to CLR. I have to say that C# without .NET would be a poorer experience, since the deliberate lack of globals and the absolute requirement for both IEnumerable interfaces and the Garbage Collector mean it would be a crippled beast without them.

If you want native, learn C++.

If you want C#, learn .NET

Posted 12-Mar-11 9:40am

OriginalGriff

Comments

pancho2413 12-Mar-11 16:29pm

I know about the power of .net but the need of just a compiled prgram of my C# applications is so huge. I can't find how to do this. It's sad dude, I programm using C# but it's a real sadness to know that there's no way to protect my applications in C#, besides, do you know how much time do I have to spend for installing them including the f***ing needed 200MB framework 3.5 for just 400 KB of my app? I use some functions from this version but I don't need the whole framework... ;-(. BTW Do you know something about an expensive software called Salamandra? they offer something like a compiler for .net.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 12-Mar-11 18:48pm

Do you think it's too much? Then wait when Windows will go. Bare .NET based OS will be much more compact than Windows + .NET (I hope). Please see my answer.
--SA

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 12-Mar-11 18:49pm

Griff, you're right, my 5.
--SA

Albin Abel 15-Mar-11 16:03pm

Good choice given. My 5

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Sep-14 11:52am

For your eyes only - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/dotnetnative.aspx

OriginalGriff 16-Sep-14 12:02pm

Interesting.
Wonder how much that is going to cost when it's ready? Native .NET could really put the C# cat among the C++ pigeons!

OriginalGriff 16-Sep-14 12:03pm

Out of interest, are you that bored you are re-running "The Best of OriginalGriff" today? :laugh:

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Sep-14 12:08pm

I didn't realized it's an old question until after post...
Somehow it was on the first page of the 'All Questions'...

Richard MacCutchan · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-12T09:58:00

Solution 2

Why would you need such a thing? C# has been designed to generate managed code whic runs in the .NET framework, not native code.

Posted 12-Mar-11 9:58am

Richard MacCutchan

Comments

pancho2413 12-Mar-11 16:22pm

C# is powerful but when I have to install an app in a new computer I need to install additional software such as the .Net Framwework 3.5 (200MB+ , that's insane!!!!) and I really need to use some functions that comes with this version.
Besides, security against decoding my apps is very important but if I have just the MSIL I will have a lot of risks.
I want to compile my program with those tools I use from the framework and nothing else (it's what everybody expect from a compiler :-D ), and take the compiled file/s to any pc

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 12-Mar-11 18:46pm

If this is your concern, just forget C#, but please see my answer.
--SA

Richard MacCutchan 13-Mar-11 4:28am

In that case I suggest you switch to C++. If you want to use C# then you must accept the .NET framework that it runs in.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 12-Mar-11 18:49pm

Richard, that's true, my 5.
--SA

Dalek Dave 13-Mar-11 8:13am

nice observation.

Albin Abel 15-Mar-11 16:02pm

Correct, My 5

Espen Harlinn · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-13T00:56:00

Solution 4

I believe you do have a point - sometimes it's nice to have a single executable. I believe there is some indication that the mono folks[^] are toying with the idea - but it's probably not ready for "prime time" :) Needed for iPhone deployment - don't know if the functionality will be available for other platforms ...

You may find that Delphi XE is just what you need - you'll have to learn object pascal, but I guess you will find that there is a lot of similarities as both are heavily influenced by Anders Hejlsberg.
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi[^]

Regards
Espen Harlinn

Posted 13-Mar-11 0:56am

Espen Harlinn

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 13:02pm

Great idea, my 5. Sorry I failed to mention this, as you know I had very positive experience with Delphi and it gave me deeper understanding of .NET.
--SA

Espen Harlinn 13-Mar-11 13:53pm

They still doesn't seem to be aware that the world is moving towards 64-bit on a fast track, and that they are seriously late for the party :)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 16:45pm

Yes, this is a good point. However, 32-bit platform is nothing wrong and transition is smooth enough. It was so funny to read about moving to "32-bit technology" in the past, because the technology shift was not about number of bits (who cares much?) but overcoming of dreaded real mode (even though protected mode existed on 16-bit architecture, it was not enough to break the situation). That was much more fundamental shift.
--SA

Espen Harlinn 13-Mar-11 16:52pm

The odd thing is - they have been promising us a 64-bit compiler for years - I've even considered moving some code to freepascal just to have 64-bit compatibility

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 17:19pm

Free Pascal might be a good way. I did not try much but I considered it when I realize I won't get more and more new versions of Delphi like it was in the past, and Delphi is not free, unlike C#, F#, etc. Also, Free Pascal with Lazarus (IDE) could be a way to cross-platform development, which I want. I would probably do more but Lazarus is too pathetic name... :-)
--SA

Espen Harlinn 13-Mar-11 17:28pm

As the COM support didn't suit my needs - I did some coding for it, then moved the solution to .Net. Lazarus might not be such a daft name though - here are some quotes - Robert Heinlein is one of my favorite authors:
Lazarus Long (Longest lived human science fiction cahracter, 1912 - ? {ranges from 2125 to 4000}, (From the author Robert Heinlein):

Never appeal to a man's better nature - he might not have one. Invoking his self interest gives you more leverage.

Natural laws have no pity.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then go do it.

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes.

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo Sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.

Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keeps her from drowning them at birth.

A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.

Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers.

An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.

Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.

A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.

"I came, I saw, SHE conquered." (The original Latin seems to have been garbled.)

In handling a stinging insect, move slowly.

A skunk is better company than a person who prides himself on being "frank."

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Rub her feet.

Everybody lies about sex.

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.

When the need arises - and it does - you must be able to shoot your own dog.

Don't try to have the last word. You might get it.

Avoid making irrevocable decisions while tired or hungry.

Do not handicap your children by making their lives too easy.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 17:45pm

:-)

Lazarus name is first associated with one of two figures in New Testament: the Lazarus from "Lazarus and Dives" was a beggar. Lazarus of Bethany is associated with suffering, especially leprosy. Old Russian idiom "to sing Lazarus" means complaining too much... A lot of pathetic associations... :-)

--SA

Espen Harlinn 13-Mar-11 17:51pm

I know, but I kind of like the Lazarus Long character :)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 18:06pm

Now use your Lazarus IDE! :-) Or you already do, don't you?
--SA

Espen Harlinn 13-Mar-11 18:18pm

No - as I mentioned - in the end it was easier to move the solution to .Net - I've played around with it though, IMHO: it still has a long way to go

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 18:25pm

Pretty much the same as with me...
--SA

Espen Harlinn 13-Mar-11 18:27pm

Seems like it's time to call it the night :)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 13-Mar-11 18:28pm

Good night, I'm at GMT-5.
--SA

Albin Abel 15-Mar-11 16:00pm

Like the alternative ideas and especially the quotes. My 5

Espen Harlinn 15-Mar-11 16:35pm

Well, thank you, AlbinAbel!

Dave Kreskowiak · Accepted Answer · 2011-06-12T13:14:00

Solution 6

There's no such animal.

There are a couple of tools that integrate the .NET Framework into your .EXE, but as you've said, the .NET Framework is a 200MB download. Gues what happens to your .EXE when the required parts of the .NET Framework are embedded into your .EXE?? You guessed it, your .EXE becomes huge! And, they won't do what you want. Your .EXE is still going to be managed code, not native.

Posted 12-Jun-11 13:14pm

Dave Kreskowiak

Comments

pancho2413 13-Jun-11 18:05pm

Yeah you're right, and some people who wrote me too. We were really thinking about changing to C++ because of security but we decided to keep C# alive with us. Thanks Dave

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Sep-14 11:52am

For your eyes only - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/dotnetnative.aspx

Dave Kreskowiak 16-Sep-14 15:19pm

Yeah, but this little question is over 3 years old now. That tool is still a Developer Preview and didn't exist back then.

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 17-Sep-14 1:43am

I didn't realized it's an old question until after post...
Somehow it was on the first page of the 'All Questions'...

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Accepted Answer · 2011-03-12T12:41:00

Solution 3

The only problem I can see is your lack of vision. It can change if you learn more about .NET. This is not a place to advocate .NET — this is not my purpose, so you might have well-justifying reasons to use native code only, but in his case you should forget C#. The only problem is that you don't understand why, because you don't feel the trend.

You probably live in different environment, but I haven't seen a single Windows system without .NET for several years. There is no thinking about the use of C# outside .NET (or compatible platform, see below). In need to know more about .NET to understand this. What's going on is just the opposite: Microsoft is working at new operating systems which will kick of the native Windows and make new systems based purely .NET (more exactly, on the CLR standard). Also, there are quite a few of other "sharp" languages used exclusively on .NET and compatible platforms.

Just to list some keywords: Singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)[^]), Midori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori[^]), Barrelfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrelfish[^]). Third-party systems include SharpOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharpOS_(operating_system)[^]) and Cosmos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_(operating_system)[^]). The same standard is supported on many existing systems with Mono (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)[^]).

—SA

Posted 12-Mar-11 12:41pm

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov

Comments

Albin Abel 15-Mar-11 16:01pm

Good points. My 5

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 15-Mar-11 17:42pm

Thank you so much.
--SA

Keith.Badeau 12-Jun-11 16:32pm

@SAKryukov:

I disagree with a couple of points you make. I don't see it as a lack of vision when one looks *past* Microsoft marketing hype, just the opposite.

I am a C/C++ & C# programmer so I am familiar with native and .NET environments, etc. I myself like the C# language but prefer the power of C++--though I am not saying C# isn't powerful but there are applications where a native program would be better suited.

When a programmer is trying to find a way to do something new (whether it is a good idea or not) we shouldn't ridicule them for "lack of vision" (makes me laugh because it doesn't take vision to see the future of Windows lays in .NET), we should try to offer our assistance and if we can't help then just shut our mouths.

Innovation and invention often come from a failed attempt at something completely different than was intended.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 12-Jun-11 16:41pm

I agree with all what you say; I only don't understand on what basis you dismiss my opinion. Moreover, I tell something what is more or less in agreement in your views but under different point of view and in different terms. A lack of vision is a fact about most of us, including myself. There is nothing offensive in it. About OP, it's about the "useless" assessment in the question, first of all.

Also, the future of .NET is not a trivial matter. Yes, it does need vision to see it. The problem is the different: future is unpredictable, and I cannot be really sure about my assessment about vision. I hope it is taken for granted -- all I say about it cannot be a fact. What now I assess as good vision could be proven wrong in future. If it comes to .NET, it would be to my regret.

Respect,
--SA

Keith.Badeau 16-Jun-11 2:50am

Forgive me, Apparently I interpreted the *intent* of your post wrongly and I can admit when I am wrong. I just have had it to my neck with posters that are demeaning to newbies or those that my not be as saavy in one area or another and so, my apologies.

You are correct that are views are in line but if you will allow me a moment to clarify my response. I 've been a hobbyist C/C++ programmer\hacker (in the sense that I consider myself a "hack") for the better part of fifteen years and I resisted .NET for the first seven years from its inception. I disagree with Microsofts inevitable path to complete reliance on the framework so I may have taken your statement (.NET, vision of...) personally.

Also, I always try to encourage experimentation, outside-the-box thinking, and, well...hacking away on the keyboard and attempts to try things others may think "crazy" or "pointless" because this is what we do.

I'm sure you can think of more than one project you've worked on that had gotten you a couple of jeers from naysayers. Also, I like the C# language though I am still not too fond of .NET--at least for my high-powered apps. ;)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 17-Jun-11 21:59pm

First of all, no problems at all. We do understand each other right now.

Now, I appreciate .NET advances in view of my long experience along the noble traditions and culture of Ada, Borland Pascal, Delphi and the similar. If was very disappointed with the C++ as the revival of the deficiency of C and domination of C++ in fact suppressing many innovative approached. The lack of inter-platform compatibility has no rational explanation, this is just the result of market fights and ambitions.

.NET is an amazing but partial success in overcoming the problems. (Previous attempt was COM -- its success is very questionable to me; that was a highly bloated activity aimed to bring OOP to a OOP-less Windows API.)

I critices .NET from a very principal position which probably stem from some dirty C legacy. Look at my articles. In "Enumerations type do not enumerate" I criticize .NET for lack of enumerations (enum is not a true enumeration as it does not support IEnumerable) -- I fix (over-work) this problem. In other articles I criticize Component Model. It stems from the lack of fully-fledged meta-class concept which was already working well in Delphi - most direct predecessor of .NET. I don't know why Microsoft stopped at so rudimentary System.Type and Reflection (still great compared to C++) -- it would be so close to read meta-classes.

Another greatest failure is a lack of inheritance in primitive types. At least C++ has typedef! This problem haunts many other programming aspects, especially generics. A boxing approach is fruitful, but could be much better. Inheritance of primitive type is well developed and highly effective.

Your concerns could be performance. But if Windows is finally abandoned (my best dream, despite the fact that this is the system I know the most), new OS placing CLR right on top of HAL will immediately show great performance; the Singularity experience already demonstrated it. All the pure performance is mostly due to legacy, not due to Garbage Collector, JIT or other advanced technologies.

Admit it, this is a very different view, isn't it? I think fundamental aspects are more important in longer run...

Cheers,
--SA

Keith.Badeau 20-Jun-11 22:22pm

Very well put and I can see now how the CLR could be an improvement by removing a layer of abstraction, i.e. Windows. This would be a fundamental shift in OS implementation and is quite interesting although it is reminiscent of the "powered by Java" in my Blu-Ray. ;)

When speaking of performance the OS can only operate within the confines of the hardware and Intel itself has admitted that the x86 model is not the most efficient of CPU models yet it is probably (in my opinion) the most popular.

Apart from a Google Chromebook I think we need a revolution in CPU technology to take full advantage of any future OS designs. I am a Microsoft diehard but I also believe it is time to bury Windows.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 22-Jun-11 17:26pm

Good to here your interesting opinion I majorly agree with.
Best,
--SA

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter 16-Sep-14 11:53am

For your eyes only - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/dotnetnative.aspx

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Sep-14 15:00pm

Wow! Thank you very much, Peter. I want to try it out.
—SA