Why not the possibility more to work with PBCC as in PBDOS

[stephane fonteyne]

Dear Dave,

Sinds the possibility to work with units is deleted from both versions form PBCC/PBDLL, I just lost my mind, because it is difficult to program modulair. I love to program with units, because that are than precompiled codes that you can spread, because it’s difficult to spread your sourcecode, I wont to sell particular modules and than units are very welcome.
I’d love to have that units are back imported and also possibility to work with projects, that gives a professional image.
Because you can’t do anything else of projects and units if you will built in the OOP in the compilers from PBDOS/PBCC/PBDLL.

Programming in units consists many advantages:
v The possibility to program units and to make bigger programs
v precompiled codes work faster
v You can spread units
v The making of statistical compilering

Yours sincerely
Stephane

[Michael Mattias]

For Windows programming, "precompiled reuseable modules" are called "Dynamic Link Libraries" and made be created using the PB/DLL compilers.

To address your specific points:

Programming in units consists many advantages:
v The possibility to program units and to make bigger programs
v precompiled codes work faster
v You can spread units
v The making of statistical compilering

Size: Windows programs may infinite size (I think). Windows will handle any swapping or CODE overlays.

Speed: A DLL is just as fast as a statically-linked library, once it is loaded.

Spread Units and statistical compilering I do not understand.

As far as it being difficult to program modularly, I do not understand. Surely it is not too different to

DECLARE FUNCTION Foo LIB "MYDLL"...

and

DECLARE FUNCTION Foo()..
$LINK "UnitContaingFoo"

.. and the same techniques of modularization apply.

If an old DOS flatus like me can adapt, so can you.

MCM

[Phil Tippit]

Stephane,

See my new thread, PowerBasic is Great!!!

Phil

------------------