![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
.NET and classic file extensions Why did Microsoft decide to give .NET libraries and `executables' .dll and .exe extensions (respectively)? This move makes very little sense as these are neither .exe or .dlls (in the binary standards sense), and leads to the sort of issue that Joel mentioned. BTW: If you want to see something that looks, acts, and smells like a hack, run some of the sysinternal tracing tools to see how the .NET extensions intercept virtually every file call to determine if it's .NET related -- _horribly_ inelegant. How about *.net and associate it just like any other application?
Dennis Forbes
What happens if you're a user who has come to learn that .exe files are programs that you can double-click to start and .dll files are libraries that you really shouldn't delete?
John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
They *are* standard exe and dll files, at least to my understanding.
Sum Dum Gai
It wouldn't be any different than VFP or VB dll or EXE that relies on the appropriate runtime. Exactly as the previous poster said.
Chris Ormerod
"What happens if you're a user who has come to learn that .exe files are programs that you can double-click to start and .dll files are libraries that you really shouldn't delete?"
Dennis Forbes
I think both points are valid. It's a difficult one.
John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
|