On 15/7/06 03:26, "Andy Dent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you really want RS to devote the resources to rewriting what is > likely to be several hundred thousand lines of idiomatic C++ into RB, > rather than putting that effort into improving the compiler and > making its existing output faster? >
While other more important issues remain, maybe not. But there would be great benefits to both RS and us, once RB was fully written in RB. The complexity of developing RB would be greatly reduced. RB bugs would be found sooner. RB Would be modified to give the performance improvements to make build times in the 100% RB app comparable ( or even better ) than those in the C++ equivalent. > I don't think any of us are writing compilers in RB. We are more > likely to benefit from efforts to improve compiler optimisation for > the kinds of applications we ARE writing :-) I have already used RB to write a translator from RB to C++ , which requires parsing and translation algorithms, similar to compilers ( but naturally not so complex). I am now writing another to do the reverse. So please don't put artificial limits on what RB is used for. You have no idea of what RB is being used for out there unless you are omnipotent :) About the only thing I RB would not be suitable for imho is drivers and system software.And even this would change once RB can produce dynamic libraries. If there are performance issues compared to C/C++ then those are down to the ability of the RB compiler to produce good machine code, rather than any language issues. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
