On Feb 1, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Stefan wrote:
Am 01.02.2007 um 21:44 schrieb Norman Palardy:
On Feb 01, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote:
You are just repeating the point I made, of course VS is written
in C++ but
the C++ compiler used is the one in VS. And of course GCC is
written in C++
- but it think you will find the compiler used to compile was GCC.
I guess you were in a mood to be pedantic. I now expect a reply
stating
how I should have used "nitpicking" instead of "pedantic"...
I was being correct not pedantic :)
REALbasic is both the language (as it's not any other dialect of
Basic) and the compiler
VS is the IDE and compiler, but not the language
Same for GCC
This might be true, but the vital point is: Due to what ever
reasons, RB
isn't well suited to write a compiler, an RS being not able to
manage this
task just proofs this.
Why isn't REALbasic well-suited to write a compiler?
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
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>
