This is a question, a lot of you are asking when they start the current version of Visual Studio Integration of XSharp; and I think you must have some explanations about it.

First, Intellisense is maybe not the right term to use, because it does cover a lot of features: So, you will have to make the distinction between Autocompletion, Parameters tooltips, Goto entity, Peek definition, Code snippets, …

And unfortunately, all that doesn’t comes automatically in VS : we have to provide the services.

Most of that was done by a LanguageService in VisualStudio, prior the 2015 version; but since then, when you look at the MSDN documentation, it is now related as legacy. Most of all, the vNext generation of Visual Studio is also introducing a new way of managing the project system, and in order to keep in touch with right technology, we must now implement these features as MEF.

MEF, the Managed Extensibility Framework, is feature introduced with .NET 4.0 that allows you to Import or Export classes as a provider, and have these automatically used by the consumer: Here, Visual Studio.

Ok, very interesting but Where is my Intellisense ?

Not too far, in fact : In order to provide Autocompletion, we must know what you are typing, in which context. So we need load references of your project and (using reflection) extract all information (Class/Method/Property/Parameters/…), then walk all your source code, and build a database of Elements using the XSharp compiler.

By the way, one element is how the Database is built : C++ is using an external database using SQLite, C# is using an In-Memory model, so we have to deal with speed and memory usage : We currently have made the choice to also have an In-Memory model, but may reconsider that if some users are running low on memory with big projects.

Creating and managing that was a bit long, but we now have a strong model and the first step will be soon available.

Last week I was on a holiday with my family in Normandy in France.
Some of the touristic highlights that we visited were of course the D-Day beaches Omaha, Utah, Juno, Gold and Sword where the allied forces started the liberation of the Northern part of Europ on June 6, 1944.
Near those beaches we also visited the war cemetaries where thousands of solders from the US, Britain, Canada and other countries were buried. This was very impressive as you can imagine.

The thought about these (mostly) young men that have given their lives to help liberate Europe, makes you feel very grateful and sad at the same time. You know that each person has left behind parents, or wife and children who have had to miss their loved sons or husbands and fathers.

At the same time the number of casualties was of course much smaller than the number of people that were killed by the occupiers. Compared to these numbers, the number of deceased allied soldiers was relatively low.

This reminded me of the famous quote from Spock in Vulcan "The needs of the wany outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

I am sure that these soldiers and their families did not have something like that in mind, but I am glad that the allied leaders have chosen to liberate Europe, even when they could know that this would mean serious losses of allied lives.

We are reaching the end of the process to implement the BYOR (Bring Your Own Runtime) support and we are working on some of the more obscure things inside the compiler: implicit and explicit conversions and the related compiler options, such as /vo4 and /vo7.

Numeric comparisons

If you would ask any normal person which number is bigger: -1 or any arbitrary positive number, then most people will say that -1 is smaller. Now ask the same thing to a computer and you may receive diferent and unexpected answers. Consider the following example program:

FUNCTION Start AS VOID
    LOCAL dwValue AS DWORD
    LOCAL liValue AS LONG
    liValue := -1
    dwValue := 1
    ? liValue < dwValue
    RETURN

Compile this code in Vulcan and it will compile without warnings, but the result will be that liValue (-1) is NOT smaller than dwValue (1).

In this Blog article I would like to share some of the dilemmas that we met when creating X#. Especially some dilemmas where we discovered that the VO/Vulcan compiler allowed things that other languages, such as C# and VB, did not allow.

Case 1

CLASS ParentClass
    VIRTUAL METHOD OnTest() AS STRING
        ? 'parent'
    RETURN 'parent'
END CLASS

CLASS ChildClass INHERIT ParentClass
    METHOD OnTest() AS STRING
        ? 'child'
    RETURN 'child'
END CLASS

FUNCTION Start() AS VOID
    LOCAL o AS ParentClass
    o:= ChildClass{ }
    ? o:OnTest() 
RETURN

When you compile this code without any "special" compiler options what would you expect ?

From the Devteam meeting in Athens we wish all our customers and supporters a very succesfull 2016.
We are looking forward to an exciting year:

• End of January the first public beta of XSharp will be released.
• End of April the official launch of the product will be at the Xbase.Future 2016 conference in Cologne (what used to be the Vulcan.Live conference). Come join us there and see the exciting new features in X#.

The devteam in front of the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens

Fabrice Foray
Nikos Kokkalis
Chris Pyrgas
Robert van der Hulst

Some of the many items in our TODO list for Vulcan.NET had to do with optimizing the runtime and adding some missing functionality (like passing USUALs by reference to CLIPPER methods) to it. We had already implemented some, like improving performance of the late binding system, but for obvious reasons we were not able to make any further improvements in Vulcan.NET. But now, with the fresh start of XSharp, it is a great opportunity to make things right and fast from the beginning. In this article we will discuss optimizations planned or already implemented on the USUAL, FLOAT and ARRAY data types, more about other types and parts of the runtime will follow in future articles.

The problem with the USUAL type

In Vulcan.NET, the VO-compatible USUAL type is defined as a structure (value type), which makes sense, as it is easier this way to emulate the semantics of the USUAL type, the same way as it behaves in VO. Structures are supposed to be lightweight, compact data types, usually a few bytes long, in order to achieve good performance when copying values from one to another, or passing them as parameters to methods etc. Examples of very common structures used in the system classes are System.Drawing.Point (8 bytes long) and Rectangle (16 bytes long).

The problem with the way the USUAL type is implemented in Vulcan.NET, is that it’s much longer than that. It is easy to check its size, with a simple line of code:

? SizeOf(USUAL)