Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <391333B4.E567C11F@videotron.ca>, pk <thi### [at] videotronca>
> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, well... You could probably do a Basic interpreter(not gwbasic...
> > QBasic would be good...)... It's got fast results, is turing complete,
> > not hard to learn, and isn't too hard to interpret, if you drop all
> > unneeded functions...
> 
> I have never seen BASIC referred to as "fast" before...and I fail to see
> the point in supporting a language like BASIC when an extension of the
> existing syntax would be sufficient.
Well, first basic isn't slower than anything else when it's not
compiled, i think... compiled, it can often be faster(see PowerBasic:
dos version comparable to C compilers, windows version usually faster
than MSVC(and BCPP, i think)) 
> > Or, you could also allow system calls... (function(system("/[whatever]",
> > x))
> 
> How would that be useful for this application? Or are you talking about
> something similar to the current "DLL" functions?
Nope, i'm talking about using external apps(.exe in wintel)... instead
of supporting a full blown language for function, just allow the user to
use the (compiled) language s/he wants to use to do the maths!
Instead of having to support everything you want POV's function language
to support, POV could just allow you to call an application, and take
the return value for result!!
--
AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at
crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)...

Post a reply to this message