32

Is it possible to force the C# compiler to pull all the referenced calls out of the framework and pack them into dlls or even a single executable?

I like writing quick 'one-off' applications with C#, however I don't want to have to install the whole framework on the target machine once it's ready to go.

ferventcoder
  • 11,952
  • 3
  • 57
  • 90
Brian Sweeney
  • 6,693
  • 14
  • 54
  • 69
  • 1
    Take a look at Delphi. It does exactly what you are asking for. The history of .Net goes back to Delphi so you should feel at home with it. You really don't need .Net, its just unessesary overhead. – William Egge Apr 15 '18 at 00:55
  • A better solution would be to containerize your applications. With docker for instance. – ldgorman Dec 14 '21 at 14:54

8 Answers8

38

You ask a loaded question. C# is merely a language and does not require the .NET Framework. The process of compiling it requires a compiler, which may or may not itself take a dependency on the .NET Framework (Microsoft's C# compiler does not -- it is written in native code). Your program will need to reference some assembly where types, classes, and methods can be found for your use. You can remove system.dll and mscorlib.dll from your references list and reference your own assemblies. So you can avoid dependencies on the .NET Framework if you really work at it. But in the end, unless you have a C# compiler that compiles programs to native code you still have a dependency on the CLR.

That's a very technical way of saying... almost nothing. But it answers your question. :) More practically useful however is how to get your C# programs to run with a minimum of dependencies. mkbundle from mono will actually let you compile it all into an .exe with virtually no dependencies.

But if you want to stick with the Microsoft .NET Framework, you can achieve a much lighter footprint and faster install of the dependencies you commonly need by using the Client profile of .NET 3.5 SP1. You can read about it here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912.aspx

Andrew Arnott
  • 80,040
  • 26
  • 132
  • 171
  • I'm trying to do this same thing with Visual Studio, and I'm being told it's impossible. – muttley91 Jul 21 '10 at 15:48
  • What is "this same thing"? I talk about several options here. – Andrew Arnott Jul 21 '10 at 15:54
  • This is my favorite part of the answer ... `But in the end, unless you have a C# compiler that compiles programs to native code you still have a dependency on the CLR.` Though is is **possible** it's not expedient because I don't think people want to write their own compilers :); I'm also not a huge fan of `mono` but that's only because maintaining an emulator is very difficult and buggy at best (IMO). – Mike Perrenoud Nov 07 '12 at 13:12
  • [MSDN page](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc656912.aspx) about Client Profile being discontinued. – Roman Jan 28 '13 at 16:39
14

Look at mkbundle using Mono.

denis phillips
  • 12,550
  • 5
  • 33
  • 47
  • I'm sure there was a tool for Windows that I used to do that, a *long* time ago. Maybe ILMerge? – configurator Feb 16 '09 at 03:20
  • is there a windows installer for the mono ide? i've found the source but i'm having a hard time locate a binary. i supposed to could just compile it but it gives me more chances to screw something up... – Brian Sweeney Feb 17 '09 at 18:01
  • An installer is available at http://www.go-mono.com/mono-downloads/download.html (click the windows icon and the links will appear) – denis phillips Feb 17 '09 at 19:23
  • that link does not seem to include the IDE, just the rest of the tools and libs, unless i'm mistaken. It seems as though you still need to DL the IDE source and compile and run in from inside of cygwin, unfortunately. – Brian Sweeney Feb 17 '09 at 20:21
10

It is now possible to compile C# to native code using Microsoft .NET Native: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn584397(v=vs.110).aspx

It automatically compiles the release version of apps that are written in managed code (C# or Visual Basic) and that target the .NET Framework and Windows 10 to native code.

...

For users of your apps, .NET Native offers these advantages:

•Fast execution times

•Consistently speedy startup times

•Low deployment and update costs

•Optimized app memory usage

This only works with Visual Studio .NET 2015.

Amir Abrams
  • 101
  • 1
  • 2
5

Take a look at the .NET client profile. This will allow you to package a minimum install on the client machine.. which will later be updated by windows update to the full framework.

This depends, of course, on your app only using libraries that are contained in the client profile ...

Some info here: http://blogs.windowsclient.net/trickster92/archive/2008/05/21/introducing-the-net-framework-client-profile.aspx

markt
  • 5,126
  • 31
  • 25
5

It's said it is possible, using 3rd-party tools such as http://www.remotesoft.com/linker/

ChrisW
  • 54,973
  • 13
  • 116
  • 224
  • For such a horrendously ugly website that looks like an amazing product especially if you're worried about source theft since obfuscation is almost trivial to a real cracker. – Chris Marisic Feb 15 '09 at 23:31
1

Not possible. Your "compiled" C# application is a language which the .Net CLR interprets (should have said JITed, Reads the IL, compiles to native code, and then invokes the compiled native code) at runtime.

FYI .net 2.0 is a standard install on xp SP2 and vista, so you won't be paying that much of a penalty.

You could look into mono, but this still involves running some kind of framework on your target machine.

Spence
  • 28,526
  • 15
  • 68
  • 103
  • 3
    "Your "compiled" C# application is a language which the .Net CLR interprets at runtime." - rubbish, just not true. The first time some managed code runs on a given machine, it is JIT compiled to native code for that machine. C# is never interpreted. – tomfanning Jun 29 '11 at 21:38
  • 1
    @tomfanning But you still need the CLR to run the compiled code, right? So if, the first time the bytecode is run, it's JIT compiled, and even on subsequent runs it's CLR-managed, what's wrong with saying that the CLR "interprets (the code) at runtime"? – Kyle Strand Jun 06 '16 at 23:36
  • @KyleStrand Holy 5 year old comment batman! Interpretation has an overloaded and specific meaning in software and I would object to it on the basis of it causing unnecessary confusion, since no [software-domain specific definition of] interpretation is ever taking place. – tomfanning Jun 07 '16 at 08:53
  • @tomfanning I suppose that's fair! I guess what I'm getting at is, is the situation significantly different from Java, where bytecode is run by the JVM? I found this question because I saw a [blog post](https://thesquareplanet.com/blog/choosing-a-programming-language/) giving examples of languages with different levels of abstraction, and it put C# at a lower level than Java, which surprised me because I thought C# was conceptually almost identical to Java. – Kyle Strand Jun 07 '16 at 13:59
  • Actually, it looks like the post has been fixed; it previously listed C# as a "mid-level" language along with C++ and Rust, and Swift as a "language with runtime". Someone on Reddit pointed out the error, and the author switched the two languages' positions. – Kyle Strand Jun 07 '16 at 14:03
  • @TomFanning C# unsafe and P/Invoke capabilities give you the ability to embed inlined C++/C/Assembler directly into executing code. You can do the same thing with JNI in Java, however you can do pointer interaction at a native level in C# without using another language to do it. – Spence Jun 07 '16 at 23:40
  • @Spence Really not sure why this has come to life again 5 years later, but to my knowledge, the `unsafe` keyword and the platform invoke feature (the `extern` keyword) do not "embed" or "inline" C++ or C or Assembler into C#. Agreed that `unsafe` allows direct pointer manipulation, but `extern` just allows you to call methods in unmanaged libraries. I don't even think they're particularly related, and not really related to the question in any case. – tomfanning Jun 08 '16 at 14:00
  • Once you've marked code as unsafe, you can use & and * ala C++ and do direct pointer interactions to the code. You can do unsafe casts as well. If you use C++/CLI and/or P/Invoke calls to mix inlined assembly / C/C++ into your C# code. – Spence Jun 08 '16 at 23:55
0

This dependency which unfortunately frequently breaks or is missing in the real world is a big reason why C# has not had a wider adoption. On the flip side most development does have dependencies.. look at C++ & Java for example.

I don't think we will really get away from these dependency issues anytime soon, so I recommend that if you want to use C#, that you make a wrapper for installation which checks for the .net framework version dependency you need, and if missing notify the user that they need this to run your app.

Dave
  • 1,823
  • 2
  • 16
  • 26
-2

Some C# features are bound to interfaces of the .NET framework.

For example:

yield return requires the IEnumerable interface

using (x) {} requires the IDisposable interface

Rauhotz
  • 7,914
  • 6
  • 40
  • 44