[Gambas-user] Runtime

Emil Tchekov emil at ...1913...
Thu May 22 14:26:59 CEST 2008


There was (from the begining of modern computing on) the same discussion -

1) do you need the last quant of speed, efficience, whole controle over
ressources etc.

or

2) do you wish fast and uncomplicated RESULTS


You will pay for the first one with long hard work until you can get useable
results.
(Remember the best efficience is only reachable on machine level - I have
heard /may be fairy tale/ that in the ROM of the spaceship Voyager /which is
on trip trough the Milky Way with some demo of us - mankind/ there was round
about 280 Bytes free after installing the OS. SO.. one of the programmers
was able to write a Star-Light orientation routine (image recognition for
star constelations) which fits in those 280 Bytes... In 2 Years...


You will pay for the second one with some resources und may be with some
unefficience or even need of runtime environment, but you can get working
results within minutes...

Packing the runtime with the executable is space wasting from that moment
on, after you have more than one app on your HDD...


Very best regards

Emil

P.S. I will be the first user of language, that combines RAD with code&space
efficience of Assembler ;-), but I am realist enough to know, that you can
NOT have everything together...




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: gambas-user-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:gambas-user-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net]Im Auftrag von Epíleg
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2008 13:35
An: mailing list for gambas users
Betreff: Re: [Gambas-user] Runtime


En/na Benoit Minisini ha escrit:
> On mercredi 21 mai 2008, Leonardo Miliani wrote:
>> Kari Laine ha scritto:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't understand much about compilers - so I ask...
>>>
>>> Benoit, why you decided to use runtime instead making Gambas a "true"
>>> compiler without the need for a runtime?
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Kari Laine
>> Interesting question...
>> I'm curios too ;-)
>
> 1) Writing a compiler (like gcc) is too complex for me. Well, not really,
but
> I don't have the time to do that.
>
> 2) Writing an interpreter is easier, and allow more freedom. Writing its
own
> interpreter is a bit like writing its own CPU. The runtime is that CPU.
The
> last sentence is a shortcut, it is more complex, of course.
>
> 3) A program written in C/C++ has its "runtime" too, but you don't see it.
gcc
> links it to your program by default. The only difference is that the gcc
> runtime (let's use that name for libc.so or libgcc_s.so) is always
installed
> by default. Not the Gambas runtime.

Very interesting but, if the Gambas runtime is writen in c/c++, this mean
that Gambas add another abstraction layer between compiled gambas program
and the hardware. In other words, Gambas runtime has also it's runtime too,
the gcc one. Isn't it?

Best regards,
Epíleg.

>
> 4) Installing the runtime would not be a problem with binary packages
> correctly done and a modern packaging system.
>
> Other questions?
>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Gambas-user mailing list
Gambas-user at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user





More information about the User mailing list