On 13/10/2006, at 11:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 23:47 UTC, Massimo Valle wrote:
I never argued on that. You are surely right.
I'm only discussing about the "new compiler" statement.
And Mars confirmed that the new compiler actually is the same of RB
5.5.5, even if the actual was extended for new targets an language
extensions.
Right, the new compiler was introduced in 5.0. (Actually, parts of it
appeared slightly earlier as RBScript, but it wasn't used for your RB
code itself until 5.0.) Has someone stated otherwise?
I would like to point out that apart from fairly small compiler
changes like shared methods and adding structures, there is one very
significant change that people may well perceive as a "compiler
change" - the framework classes' methods are all now virtual methods
- they can be overriden in subclasses.
This has some performance impacts (RGBSurface), adds a lot of
flexibility and I don't know enough to say how it may impact on
robustness. Obviously there is at least some difference in how the
framework code is linked, whatever is remaining in c++.
the questions earlier in the thread were, I think, more about the
introduction of a new compiler in RB200x vs RB5.
Technically, the framework changes are not a compiler change but I
suspect they were perceived as such.
Andy
who just came out of a 3 hour meeting that was originally supposed to
be a 1 hour meeting, in which a lot of noise was generated by
different perceptions ;-)
_______________________________________________
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>
