Yep, the performance of the language is fine, and the "power" of the
language is the same, in total, as any other turing-complete
programming language.
The 3D API in RealBasic could be improved significantly, in
capability, rendering quality and performance - it's simply not used
enough to justify that development by Real Software. There is no
particular language feature that is needed for a 3D API which RB does
not already have.
On 19/05/2005, at 12:30 PM, John Balestrieri wrote:
I strongly disagree.
John Balestrieri
<http://www.tinrocket.com/>
On May 17, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Adam Cuipka wrote:
All I was trying to say, originally, was that what REALBasic
offers is
about as good as its going to get for 3D, unless you incorporate some
serious power into the language. At which point, the Beginner's
All-purpose
accessibility of REALBasic diminishes.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|