- #Xojo programming language how to
- #Xojo programming language full
- #Xojo programming language software
For example in C++ and Objective C you can access the structure representing the object instance. But this is mostly due to object orientation. Wrong, Xojo was designed to shield you from the hardware more than C does. Java is different as it compiles to the Java Virtual Machine and not to machine code.Ĭ was designed to be closer to the hardware. using it do it right), the result will be the same speed. If the compiler infrastructure is the same (and if the developers at Xojo Inc. The only real difference is object orientation. Xojo is not a “higher level language” compared to C/C++, neither is Java. In addition to Dave’s notes, faster solutions may be possible in C++ than in other higher level languages such as Xojo, Java, etc. But the major gains in those cases came from efficient solutions to the problems and not from the language or Taylor: Could I have squeezed out even more performance in C++? Probably. I’ve had a couple instances where someone said Xojo was “too slow” only to have my final Xojo solution blow out their existing or proposed C++ solution.
#Xojo programming language software
There are times when you can achieve performance in C++ that you simply cannot in other languages.īut more often than not it is swamped by software architecture. Language speed is relevant in certain situations. There are a lot of people who laugh when I say I like to write my apps in Xojo, but I will always lose this discussion when it comes to the speed of compiled code.
#Xojo programming language full
Any particular object or function in the Xojo framework may be roughly the same, faster, or slower than comparable functionality in another framework.Īll of that said, XojoScript with full optimization is pretty close to C. Most applications sit on top of a stack of APIs, libraries, frameworks, etc. Norman mentioned compile times that “ran for days.” Hopefully this is something that will improve with time as Xojo works on their portion of the compiler chain. I don’t know the specific issues involved, but for some reason having LLVM attempt all optimizations causes excessively long compile times with Xojo.
#Xojo programming language how to
For some algorithms this gives a distinct advantage if you know how to exploit C.Īs discussed in the thread Migrating from RealBasic (RB2008 to Xojo) Xojo is making a trade off between LLVM optimization and compile times. As the language evolved into C++ the emphasis was still on efficiency at the expense of ease of use. C was designed to be closer to the hardware. What Dave S said above was going to be my first point, but he beat me to it. Shouldn’t compiled Xojo execute as fast as C++? You give up some speed and performance for safety and ease of O'Brien: Xojo like any language has its trade offs. You could however implement that same control yourself in Xojo, or as a plugin so whats the difference? I’m sure if enough people asked for a particular control they could work something up in a release or two. Some aspects of the IDE were built to be part of the IDE and don’t have an API compatible with general usage. Those features, abstractions (some leaky) have a performance cost.Īs for why controls implemented in the IDE are not universally available… well not every control was built to be distributed and documented. It provides a lot of safety and convenience features you don’t get out of the box with C++. Xojo to C++ speed comparison is not precise unless you write an app in console mode and use pragma’s to disable Xojo features. Xojo provides native UI components which expose libraries in C/C++ so it makes sense they use C++ at the lowest levels. My understanding is the Xojo compiler is technically a plugin to the IDE like any other. C++ plugins aren’t necessary for the average user.