All very good points. Of course one reason ( almost inferred in what you said ) why the C standard libraries and runtimes are so stable is that their feature set and API have been almost "written in stone". Newer libraries such as boost also go through major comittee style deliberations before being released.
All good stuff - If only C++ wasn't such a right PAIN!, and I'm not just referring to syntax. One of the major stated goals of the upcoming C00 is to reduce all the pointless spewing of compiler error messages - most of which are merely knock on errors produced by a previous trivial error - a missing ";" for example. RB is so much better in that regard. Maybe one option would be to allow the developer to combine different versions of the runtime, compiler and IDE. So that one could stick with a more tried and tested version of the runtime language frameworks, while for example moving to a newer IDE and compiler. On 26/9/06 20:15, "Norman Palardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
