Hi Marek,
I don't use harbour.dll at all (never exactly understood
its details and benefits), but since I've built all
binaries for Windows, I was wondering why are we having
to differently named ones, a practice which I haven't
seen in any other projects before.
So read my answer to Mindaugas, where I quoted MSVC docs
about the issue I was trying to show to both of you.
Yes, thanks, I did and it was useful.
Answering to your question, I'm not sure if I'd want to
use Borland dynamic C RTL. Why is it better than using
the static one?
It's not a matter of "being better or worse". It's a matter
of "working" at all. Some projects WILL NOT work without dynamic
CRTL. That's a matter of fact. You have to deal with it.
Okay.
And back to the first one, what is the
benefit of harbour-*.dll? (no pun intented, I'm really
interested, and I don't want to remove it either.)
Some libraries have to be compiled to dll. Otherwise
they will not work at all. That's their nature. An
example is HbWxW. There are literaly hundreds of classes
in it, each of them being in a separate obj. Those
classes create other classes dynamicly during runtime.
So often there is no reference to some class from your
code, but it has to be created. Because it is not
referenced by your code you would have to REQUEST it
explicitly. But you do not know WHICH one will be
created in general - it's internal part of a librbary.
So you would have to REQUEST ALL classes from library,
causing the final exe to be simlpy HUGE - each exe created
would contain ALL classes. Having a library in dll
solves the problem in an elegant way.
Thanks for the explanation.
BTW, I didn't know about HbWxW at all to this day,
but I'll give it a shot now.
BTW2: Is there anything missing from Harbour (besides
MT support), to create a Harbour version of HbWxW?
[ The issue so far:
1) C calling convention differences (solvable)
2) name mangling differences (solvable)
3) C RTL interaction and dependency
Multiple issues, the exact specifics are not exactly clear
to me yet. ]
So read my answer to Mindaugas, where I quoted MSVC docs
about the issue I was trying to show to both of you.
Okay, object passing was one issue I had in mind.
an attack. I'd prefer to read more on the technical
details rather.
I DO NOT cosider it an attack. I consider it *FORCING*.
?
If this is a tabu issue in some sorts of ways, let's move on.
Tabu ? You can call it TABU if you do not want to listen
arguments.
I'm gladly listening. All I wonder is why listening and
raising some questions qualifies as forcing.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
