On Sep 26, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote:
I honestly think that the only way RB can attain some kind of
"ubiquity"
against the behemoth of Microsoft and entrenched "pro" cachet of C+
+, is to
free advanced RB professional developers from having to resort to C
just to
get the desired speed. There is no reason why RB cannot be both an
easy
language to learn AND one that provides enough options to do things
the C
way where it is desired.
stability stability stability
C and C++ are widely used because their runtime are very stable. Very
few show stopping bugs in long established code.
Cure they give you the rope to hang yourself if you write bad code,
but the standard libraries they include rarely do this to you.
It's not JUST speed you get from C and C++. In fact if you want speed
for certain kind of algorithms Fortran still blows the doors of C and
C++.
And in other Snobol is better.
If you want speed write in hand optimized assmebler for your platform.
It's been a while but the Vax assembler I used to write was always
faster than anything the compilers could chunk out. It just took
longer to get the speed improvements.
Since RB is a "closed" language (there are no third party compilers)
and the runtime is also not "open" like C/C++ standard libraries are
they need to be very bug free.
While I certainly LOVE lots of compiler optimizations, for me
significantly reduced bug counts would be even more welcome.
Speed with lots of bugs is not useful.
As for being able to write anything in RB that's an eventuality.
But I'd take stable, relatively bug free runtimes first
_______________________________________________
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>
