Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whynot build-in Units like earlear versions of PBDOS example

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    This topic has come up a couple of times here.

    I still come down on the side of "The Windows Way":

    Instead of $LINK (PB/DOS), you use DECLARE ProcName "InThisDLL" or $INCLUDE "This Source File of Common Stuff".

    The ONLY argument in favor of precompiled statically-linked modules I have agreed is valid is that, pending PowerBASIC's Windows compilers becoming 32-bit products, size limitations prevent the use of all the $INCLUDEs one might like to use.

    But I'm "positive" PowerBASIC will be porting the compilers to 32-bit one of these days. (Right, guys?)

    MCM


    Leave a comment:


  • stephane fonteyne
    Guest started a topic Whynot build-in Units like earlear versions of PBDOS example

    Whynot build-in Units like earlear versions of PBDOS example

    Hi,

    Please build-in Projects and Units from the versions PBCC and PBDLL.
    You can than distributed units to other programmers. Units I like it its very good for modular programming.

    Ok, you have DLL's but units is very precompile fastcode and then can you linked to your main program.

    Think about it

    Kind regards,
    Stephane
Working...
X