I don't believe DLLs are the way to go. Who said that? One of those "My dad is bigger than your dad." guys? With all the function in AFL I see little need to use a DLL. But the why you don't see many of them is because DLLs are much harder to program and debug. You will need to learn another language, use another compiler and learn a whole new set of coding and debug procedures plus all the other nonsense with learning a new language.
I think Tomasz has said with the improvements in AFL there is little speed advantage. There is the disadvantage. All the the calls to the DLL adds overhead, slowing things down. But then local calls add overhead. So is there really a speed advantage? I haven't a clue. Tomasz knows and may add to this. Then there is not much support from DLL writers so you will pretty much have to learn all that on you own. Have fun with that! I have written some DLLs and came flying back to AFL. I wrote an auto trading program in AFL that is 2000 lines long, over 20 pages printed, and I see no need or advantage in converting it to a DLL. I have it laid out as I would in C++ with functions and all that nonsense. That is really important with large programs and you can code the common stuff and use #include to plop it into your new modules. You can write some really complicated code in AFL. So learn that first and learn it well and forget DLLs. IMHO, Barry > > Hello, > Many people have said that a DLL is the way to go for a formula. It > is said it is faster among other positives. Why then is there so few > DLL's available? I know my ignorance about computers is showing but I > would really like to know. Are they more complicated than an AFL, you > need special training, what? Thank you for indulging my curiosity. > > Kindest regards always, > > Tim >
