On Dec 8, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Kem Tekinay wrote:
On 12/8/06 4:55 PM, Tim Jones at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take it for what it was - a away to get perl performance in RB. I
never claimed that it made RB faster, just that the summary
application would provide the simplicity of an RB GUI wrapped around
a PERL-fast script.
My comment was not aimed at you, nor do I think you should have
taken such
offense. If you did, my apologies.
Hi Kem,
Sorry, my response was aimed at Alberto's comment. No offense
taken. I was resolving part of your original discussion about the
legibility of the RB language versus the oddity of PERL's language
constructs. I use perl for a few things and agree with others that a
few days away from the code you just wrote feels like you're trying
to decipher another's code when it's actually your own work.
However, I also like to use the best tool for a job. If combining
tools makes the resulting effort even better, then all the better.
Heck, I've even execv'd a perl script from a C app a few times for
string handling (rather than reinvent the wheel).
So yes, perl is faster than RB (and a lot of other compiled
languages), but that performance can be harnessed for good by
wrapping it inside of your RB GUI app. And, having a plugin (no
offense, Theo) to approach the perl speed inside of RB is a great
idea, but isn't it the same as my shell idea in the long run - it's
added functionality or performance that's missing in RB in either
case. IN either case we end up with a faster application.
Tim
--
Tim Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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>
