Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Posted by
Bryan-TheBS-Smith
on 2001-08-20 09:32:04 UTC
Carol & Jerry Jankura wrote:
compile and execution times are several times faster than VB -- near
C-speeds (approx 70%, whereas VB <=4 was only about 5-10%, and VB >=5 is
only about 20-25%). Although the underlying language takes some getting
used to (unless you're an old Turbo Pascal geek like myself ;-), it is
well worth it. It's strongly typed structure is ideal for applications
IMHO.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to have a development system that seemlessly
ports between both Windows and Linux. Although there is GCC and
libraries like wxWindows, nothing has a RAD (radical application
development) IDE (integrated development environment) like Delphi/Kylix.
-- TheBS
P.S. If you use these free "community" versions, you must release your
software GPL (GNU Public License). You must buy the commercial versions
to do commercial/non-GPL development, although the GPL does not force
you to release the source code for internal-only development (i.e. if
you don't release the software publicly, you don't have to release the
source code either -- unlike some other open source licenses, namely
vendor-specifc ones like IPL, NPL, SCSCL, etc...).
--
Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@... chat:thebs413
Engineer Absolute Value Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com
> If you're not familiar with Delphi, it's an object PascalIt is also a truly compiled language, and not p-code crap like VB. Both
> based language with a Visual Basic style interface. In
> my opinion, the components it offers are more complete
> than those offered with VB, and the price is certainly
> more attractive.
compile and execution times are several times faster than VB -- near
C-speeds (approx 70%, whereas VB <=4 was only about 5-10%, and VB >=5 is
only about 20-25%). Although the underlying language takes some getting
used to (unless you're an old Turbo Pascal geek like myself ;-), it is
well worth it. It's strongly typed structure is ideal for applications
IMHO.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to have a development system that seemlessly
ports between both Windows and Linux. Although there is GCC and
libraries like wxWindows, nothing has a RAD (radical application
development) IDE (integrated development environment) like Delphi/Kylix.
-- TheBS
P.S. If you use these free "community" versions, you must release your
software GPL (GNU Public License). You must buy the commercial versions
to do commercial/non-GPL development, although the GPL does not force
you to release the source code for internal-only development (i.e. if
you don't release the software publicly, you don't have to release the
source code either -- unlike some other open source licenses, namely
vendor-specifc ones like IPL, NPL, SCSCL, etc...).
--
Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@... chat:thebs413
Engineer Absolute Value Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com
Discussion Thread
Carol & Jerry Jankura
2001-08-20 09:03:51 UTC
Languages
Bryan-TheBS-Smith
2001-08-20 09:32:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Larry Edington
2001-08-20 11:40:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Bryan-TheBS-Smith
2001-08-20 12:38:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Larry Edington
2001-08-20 13:15:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Bryan-TheBS-Smith
2001-08-20 13:30:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Kevin P. Martin
2001-08-20 13:38:39 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages and reverse-engineerability
Tim
2001-08-20 13:43:59 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages
Bryan-TheBS-Smith
2001-08-20 13:54:32 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Languages