terry at discovery.nl
Thu May 30 01:20:01 EDT 2002
> (1) When you write in a higher language like C, there is nothing you can
> 'say' that cannot also be written directly in machine-code, is that
> correct? In other words, you could create a language that introduces
> novel computing approaches, but in the end it must be compilable, which
> means translated into machine code?
> (2) Now, my impression has been that the metacard engine more or less
> emulates a mini-computer, ie creates a virtual computer within your
> computer. If that idea is correct, then metacards virtual computer
> machine-talk is different from the real computer's machine talk, but
> does idea (1) above still hold true? In other words, anything I write
> in transcript 'could' be written directly in machine-code?
Nowadays, both the higher and lower programming languages work with
'libraries'. The main difference between xTalk and C++ is that with C++ you
have to think which libraries you need and include them manually. With xTalk
all the genuine libraries are automatically included. Only a few of them are
optional. So you cannot write a 16K standalone with RR; 1Mb seems to be the
minimum. On the other hand, an efficiently working 16 minute standalone
seems impossible with C++.
More information about the use-livecode