home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: cdn_news.telecom.com.au!usenet
- From: Dave Nottage <DNottage@SCOMHBR3.telecom.com.au>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: "SHOULD I DUMP VISUAL BASIC?"
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 11:51:36 -0800
- Organization: Telstra
- Message-ID: <3117B148.6A2@SCOMHBR3.telecom.com.au>
- References: <4e9g08$3dp@maureen.teleport.com> <4e9oji$me5@news-2.csn.net> <4ebko9$8tn@hasle.sn.no> <4egdqm$app@shore.shore.net> <4eiogb$cas@hasle.sn.no> <310CFB3E.114B@mail.inett.no> <4etkm5$n3p@newshost.cyberramp.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: tha44.scon.telecom.com.au
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4a (Win16; I)
-
- George Copeland wrote:
- > Forgive me, but your attitude is absolutely moronic. VB is comparable
- > to Pascal in every way, except for I/O, which VB handles *MUCH*
- > better. It is interpreted because it makes the executables miniscule
- > in size. Why compile all that window-manipulation code in each
- > program when they all do the same thing? Doesn't this part of the
- > project sound like the part that should be written in C and called,
- > just like Microsoft implemented it?
-
- A comparison I did between VB and Delphi showed that Delphi's I/O is
- several times faster than VB in terms of standard file processing.
-
- Interpreted executables may be miniscule, however they run far slower
- than native code.
-
- Whether the window handling routines are written in Pascal or C is irrelevant,
- because both are compiled to native code. There are no secondary 'DLL calling' overheads
- with Delphi. VB calls VBRUNxxx.DLL functions which call USER.EXE etc functions.
-
- Dave
-
- opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer.
-
- "Well, alllllrighty then!!!!" - Ace Ventura.
-