The very same question I didn't dare asking ;-)
Regards,
Youri
C. S. Wyatt wrote:
On the comp.compilers Usenet list there was some discussion on the
"language vs. framework" notions and I must admit that I couldn't make
heads or tails of it, in the end. The argument was that some compilers
do directly deal with what was, many released ago, nothing more than
"macros" or even libraries of routines coded for convenience.
If the language is the official syntax, control statements, and some
standard libraries, what is the "framework" portion of RB versus the
language? What conceptual divide am I missing? Is it the UI elements?
Something else?
I'm just trying to grasp this for my own benefit, not for some lengthy
debate on Cocoa v. RB v. .Net or whatever.
Just wondering how RB defines the framework vs. the language itself.
- CSW
_______________________________________________
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>
