DLLC status

[JRS]

I think we should abandon the threaded IUP approach.

Can you post an example of using DLLC to generate a dynamic on the fly callback function? Just a modified version of one of your existing virtual function examples would be great. (first step)

[Charles Pegge]

I think the stability problem is between DLLC and SB. IUP is ok.

I am looking at variations of projectsC\ScriptBasic\IUP\ButtonsBootB.sb & ButtonsB.sb

[JRS]

Sounds good. Looking forward to what you find.

FYI: Dave's COM DLL has a working SB callback function you could call with DLLC FFI. (not a SB ext. module call)

Thanks again Charles for supporting your ScriptBasic extension module. It brings together the best of both worlds of an interpreter and compiler.

[JRS]

OT Update

When DLLC and IUP  failed for my project I went for the only option I had left which was the VB6 ActiveX DLL form and using the COM extension module to interface with it.

I wasn't able to thread the form but was able to start a SB thread from a callback. I'm using MT to set inter-process variables and use a VB timer control to callback to SB to update the UI. Working great so far.

[JRS]

Charles,

Do you have any news about your efforts with DLLC and callbacks without creating a thread?

[Charles Pegge]

Unfortunately not. I'm going to have to give up on DLLC.

[JRS]

Sad seeing you invested so much of your time into the interface.

Could you post an example of a virtual callback function so I can see what I can do to keep DLLC relevant?

[Charles Pegge]

projectsC\ScriptBasic\DLLCtests\DllcSpec5BootT.sb

It was an interesting excercise in generics, but perhaps too far to be practical. I will not mourn the passing of DLLC.

[JRS]

Will you also be glad to rid yourself of ThinBasic now that Eros chose FreeBasic over o2?

I still plan on investing time in DLLC as it gives ScriptBasic an embeddable JIT compiler when speed becomes a factor.

[Charles Pegge]

It's a much simpler interface and requires no further maintenance.



https://www.thinbasic.com/community/content.php?47-thinBasic-1-10-8-x

Interesting proposal. I can see thinBasic using FreeBasic as a back-end since most thinBasic apps do not need to be interpretive.

[JRS]

Are you going to support your ThinBasic interface when Eros goes FB 64 bit?

[Charles Pegge]

Could do, but first I need to complete a self-compiling 64bit oxygen.

[JRS]

My understanding is Eros is converting ThinBasic to FreeBasic not just using it to extend the interpreter. Why would he want to use O2 as an extension to FreeBasic?

It would have been a big plus if Eros went with O2 instead of FreeBasic.

The only advantage using FB is it is now a C translator instead of an ASM compiler like O2.

[JRS]

Charles,

If I take over maintaining DLLC, will you be willing to answer questions I may have if I hit the wall? DLLC is complete as far as its intended role to replace DYC. The only change I would like to make is use O2 virtual functions to define callbacks and use the SB hook function to call SB functions and subs.

John

[Charles Pegge]

I am very tired. I just want to complete o2, wind down and retire.