See I didn't know the numbers that well. Nice to know I wasn't just imagining it :-)
"deeply integrated" was really just a flippant turn of phrase. I'm a recent switcher, so it may simply be that my familiarity has increased. On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:03 AM, Les Harris wrote: > on 9/23/02 8:43 PM, Bill Stephenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>> From: "Michael P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with >>> GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. > >> >> What does that do for us? > > Due to various improved compile time code optimizations executable code > generated by GCC 3.1 tends to be about 6 percent faster on average > than code > generated by the 2.95 branch. GCC 3.1 also features a much faster > preprocessor which makes compiling faster if you are a developer. > > A few Obj-C improvements include things like fixed linker warnings, > certain > @protocal definitions will work properly, and perhaps the largest > improvement: the classlookup code in the runtime library has been > rewritten > providing faster performance. > > There are some caveats to this as some things that will compile in > 2.95x > have a few more problems with 3.1. Also, previously compiled > libraries (or > programs even, perhaps) already installed on your system might have to > be > recompiled if you upgrade to Jaguar. > >>> As a developer I'm quite happy to >>> have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I >>> kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a >>> big >>> deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it >>> worth the $$$. IMNSHO >> >> What exactly is "under the hood" that makes it worth the $$$. Is it >> faster? >> More stable? > > Things are generally faster. I am unsure how the developer tools are > more > deeply integrated in Jaguar than in previous versions however. > > Les Harris >
