| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FreezingFire
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Jun 2002
Posts: 3508
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 4:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
What I'm saying is that if it was integrated into the resulting executable,
the end-user wouldn't have to drag the runtime around.
So if it was integrated, then you can make a language and have your
interpreter be one executable. The compiler would insert a resource
into your executable which contains the script and then you can just
read from the resource in that executable and execute the commands.
I never said anything about the size of the runtime. VDS 5's runtime
is only about 220kb or something though. 
_________________
FreezingFire
VDSWORLD.com
Site Admin Team |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FreezingFire,
I understand what you are saying, sir. I just wanted to point out to others that just because we have integrated the runtime does not mean that it has gone away. The runtime is still there and will be extracted in some way 
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreezingFire
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Jun 2002
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I understand what you are saying, sir. |
Sir?
| Quote: | | The runtime is still there and will be extracted in some way. |
What about VDS 2.x? Didn't that have an option for an integrated
runtime? I didn't think that it was extracted. 
_________________
FreezingFire
VDSWORLD.com
Site Admin Team |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FreezingFire wrote: | | Quote: | | I understand what you are saying, sir. |
Sir?
| Quote: | | The runtime is still there and will be extracted in some way. |
What about VDS 2.x? Didn't that have an option for an integrated
runtime? I didn't think that it was extracted. |
Yes Mam or Sir
VDS 2.x did have a integrated runtime but the runtime was the EXE and the script was tacked onto the end of the EXE. That is how alot of scripting languages do it. They either tack their scripts on to the end of an EXE or place the script as a resource in this file. Either way the runtime is still with you. I perfer it to be bytecode tacked onto the end of a EXE instead of it being an external DLL and EXE combo. Anyway to each his/her own.
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreezingFire
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Jun 2002
Posts: 3508
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a Sir but nobody ever calls me that.
Yeah, personally I prefer an integrated EXE too.
_________________
FreezingFire
VDSWORLD.com
Site Admin Team |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tommy
Admin Team
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindpower wrote: | Hummmm,
Without an assembler or linker it would be very hard to write VDS with VDS. Not impossible but we would need an assembler or linker written in VDS. I have been looking into making an assembler with VDS.... |
I think that if you were seriously to do that, it wouldn't be competitive anymore, it
wouldn't even be an interpreted language anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeoTrail
Valued Contributor
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Posts: 572
Location: Bergen, Norway
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
What if...
Lets say that you made a simple program, for file handling or something. And you have only used a few functions and commands from VDS in the script. When you compile it it will only insert the used functions and commands, instead of the whole VDS runtime file.
Wouldn't that be an idea?
That would cut down on the total program size 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm I am not quite sure what you mean Tommy when you said
| Tommy wrote: | | , it wouldn't be competitive anymore |
As for it not being an interpreted language anymore, well what category of languages would you place "Java" in? Is it interpreted? It still needs a runtime to read it's bytecode? I know it places the code into a virtual machine but wouldn't you consider it an interpreted language because it does not compile to pure native machine code? Just some food for thought here
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GeoTrail wrote: | What if...
Lets say that you made a simple program, for file handling or something. And you have only used a few functions and commands from VDS in the script. When you compile it it will only insert the used functions and commands, instead of the whole VDS runtime file.
Wouldn't that be an idea?
That would cut down on the total program size |
Well actually GeoTrail that is more or less what a compilier does. It scans your source files and includes, then it converts that to object code. After that it takes all the little pieces of object code and links or binds them together in a logical structure at which time is writes this data and executable code to a binary file.
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi All,
I need to correct something that I said in a previous post. We actually do not need an assembler. We really just need a smart enough linker to do the job of combining the interpreted script and the object code for just the functions the EXE needs to run as the script commands it to do so.
Well anyway compiler Theory is a very very deep subject to be talking about on this message board but Smart Linkers do exist and you will see more about them in the next generation of compilers that are coming out.
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tommy
Admin Team
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindpower wrote: | Hmmm I am not quite sure what you mean Tommy when you said
| Tommy wrote: | | , it wouldn't be competitive anymore |
|
What I meant to say was, that if you would make your VDS based language/compiler in
such way, that it will translate scripts into assembler, it would be a potentially different product
than VDS, so that I wouldn't think it would have to compete with VDS anymore, so that in the
end it would be legal to make such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vdsalchemist
Admin Team
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 1448
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2003 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tommy wrote: | | mindpower wrote: | Hmmm I am not quite sure what you mean Tommy when you said
| Tommy wrote: | | , it wouldn't be competitive anymore |
|
What I meant to say was, that if you would make your VDS based language/compiler in
such way, that it will translate scripts into assembler, it would be a potentially different product
than VDS, so that I wouldn't think it would have to compete with VDS anymore, so that in the
end it would be legal to make such thing. |
Hi Tommy,
That is cool to know but I am not sure if it would be legal. I would have to ask SADE about this Not that I am planning anything like this mind you. It would take a lot of effort to build.
_________________
Home of
Give VDS a new purpose!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CodeScript
Moderator Team
Joined: 08 Jun 2003
Posts: 1060
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...use of the software to create competitive products, is expressly forbidden. |
Even I had once thought that One can use VDS for creating apps for self/same company use or as freewares and NOT for creating commercial shareware/competitive products.
BTW I dont have much knowldge in programming and computers are'nt my field either but I strongly think that VDS compiler should have interpreted and converted the script to machine opcodes at compile time rather than attaching the script as a resource and interpreting agian and again and again .. at runtime. I think this would increase the speed of the compiled exe tremendously and also decrease the size of runtime if needed equally drastically. and I think this is all mindpower is talking about
_________________
Regards
- CodeScript
 Give your application a professional look with the VDSGUI Extension |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SnarlingSheep
Professional Member
Joined: 13 Mar 2001
Posts: 759
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CodeScript wrote: |
BTW I dont have much knowldge in programming and computers are'nt my field either but I strongly think that VDS compiler should have interpreted and converted the script to machine opcodes at compile time rather than attaching the script as a resource and interpreting agian and again and again .. at runtime. I think this would increase the speed of the compiled exe tremendously and also decrease the size of runtime if needed equally drastically. and I think this is all mindpower is talking about |
I agree, especially for the price.
_________________
-Sheep
My pockets hurt... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tommy
Admin Team
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2003 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the current price I think that such think absolutely couldn't be expected. Only prices
heading into WinBatch's direction would be starting to be reasonable for such a product. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
@vdsworld