🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3126DBB2.5209@magna.com.au>,
John Osborne <josborne@magna.com.au> wrote:
>The compiled .vs. interpreted debate is partially bogus.  Even in 

"partially"? :-)

>compiled languages, on a PC or a mainframe, as soon as ones code enters
>a runtime library routine, you are -probably- off into 
>interpretation-land.

You came up with *one* example. Have any more?

>library is compiled, as is the ChartFX component in Delphi, or the 

(ChartFX happens to be a VBX, not that it matters much)

>When using VB or other -statement based- interpreted languages, where 
>most people suffer a performance hit is doing things like writing their 
>own INSTR function -within- VB.  Each p-code statement has to be 

Or if they e.g. write their own sorting routines... My 486DX-33 running
a Delphi implementation of a shell sorting routine would easily beat
a Pentium-100 running a VB implementation... 

I.e. if you're doing anything in VB, you *must* know a second language
(C or Pascal), while with Delphi everything can be done in the same
language/IDE. Much more effective, maintainable, etc. 


-- 
=\
 *=- R.Moberg, CD-Player Pro info @ http://www.sn.no/~mobergru/
=/