Wow, 15-20 min sounds Painful!

That being said, of course, when I would render 3D Images, 15-20 min for a single image is NOT out of the Ordinary!

-K-

On 12/19/2016 8:23 PM, Ken Dibble wrote:

...

I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to Arago's "true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file sizes were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.

As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL, you got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.

It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a 386 40 MHz machine.

Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org

[excessive quoting removed by server]

IBM System 360 Assembler we had three sizes of compiles (well assembles) - 'fag', 'coffee', and 'pub' <g> fwiw IBM also used 2-byte dates - 7 bits for year and 9 bits for day-of-year.

On 20-Dec-2016 7:21 AM, Ken Dibble wrote:

...

Wow, 15-20 min sounds Painful!

It was longer on the 286. On the 386 I could time it to go with my coffee breaks. *L*

Ken

[excessive quoting removed by server]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:

would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???

15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.

Here we go, "Oh, sure, you kids had compilers and cards and paper tape. We had to wire our logic directly onto the circuit boards."

http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-09-08

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Dave Crozier DaveC@flexipol.co.uk wrote:

Agreed Alan.

I was even worse off when I started because you could guarantee that all your punched cards be dropped on the twice daily dash to the computing lab for their compilation slots and have to be hurriedly re-assembled after which there was always one out of order and your program compilation run was rejected.

Then there was paper tape which was not much better when the furry holes were out of alignment with the reader resulting in yet another rejection and/or quick additions/amendments via an 80 column hand punch!!!

I still remember some of the sequences to this day.

Oh happy days!.

Dave

-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: 20 December 2016 15:34 To: profox@leafe.com; profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:

...

would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???

15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.

-- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm

[excessive quoting removed by server]

Well that's actually true, Assembly Language course at Lodge Rd London, if you wanted your source code 'interpreted' (printed above the punch holes) then you had to learn how to plug-wire the circuit board of the interpreter to read/feed-back the character punch codes. And I do remember seeing an IBM programmer (a pretty blonde as I recall) in tears because she had dropped her box of source code cards down two flights of stairs (a box was 2,000 cards). If there was cricket on at Lords you could watch it from the restaurant.

On 20-Dec-2016 10:33 PM, Ted Roche wrote:

Here we go, "Oh, sure, you kids had compilers and cards and paper tape. We had to wire our logic directly onto the circuit boards."

http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-09-08

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Dave Crozier DaveC@flexipol.co.uk wrote:

...

Agreed Alan.

I was even worse off when I started because you could guarantee that all your punched cards be dropped on the twice daily dash to the computing lab for their compilation slots and have to be hurriedly re-assembled after which there was always one out of order and your program compilation run was rejected.

Then there was paper tape which was not much better when the furry holes were out of alignment with the reader resulting in yet another rejection and/or quick additions/amendments via an 80 column hand punch!!!

I still remember some of the sequences to this day.

Oh happy days!.

Dave

-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: 20 December 2016 15:34 To: profox@leafe.com; profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:

...

would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???

15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.

-- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm

[excessive quoting removed by server]

When I was in college doing VMS Pascal on a VAX 11/780 minicomputer, it could easily take 15 or 20 minutes to compile a program if there were 150 other people all doing the same thing. A good grounding in getting it right first time.

On 2016-12-19 20:23, Ken Dibble wrote:

...

I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to Arago's "true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file sizes were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.

As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL, you got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.

It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a 386 40 MHz machine.

I recall getting dinged for VFP's runtimes back in the late 90s/early 2000s. Ridiculous, especially given where we are today.