Am 16.07.2006 um 12:14 schrieb Dan Stenning:
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.
I don't hink so. Even Apple uses the GCC set of tools - and thus
doesn't
need to put much resources in GCC itself. As a result, the can put
more in XCode e.g.
I don't feel, that for a company of RS' size, it's a good choice to
reinvent
the wheel like rewriting a compiler for RB in RB.
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 :)
We don't ask for artificial limits, just good use of resources. RB is
not a compiler-writing
tool. The fact, that you write certain translators is ok - but the
masses don't
do this.
_______________________________________________
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>
