Paris ne s'est pas fait en un jour.

>Hi Rosty,
>
>Last time, I tried the compiler stuff - on an oldish machine with very limited resources - the whole compilation locked up:( I admit that the last time I compiled stuff - in a C or C++ manner - was 1997 (was WATCOM C compiler and the output were FLLs...).
>
>I admit to not having not "built" anything from C sources since. No compiler of any sort and I try hard to avoid getting my feet wet on these issues that are certainly not simpler in 2017 than in the early 90s..
>
>Of course I appreciate the effort by Chuanbing has put into his set of tools A LOT. And I'd be glad to understand what this 64-bits compiler is bringing to VFP. But I am not enthused by the minor quirks solved and a bit upset by the chances that activeX and COM-objects may not work!
>
>My questions on (in no particular order !):
>1) are the VFP advanced tools producing VFP-style executables (with a requirement for a series of runtime dlls) ?
>2) is the VFP compiler tool producing standalone Executables (with NO requirement for dll) ?
>3) is the VFP speed untouched (quite wary on this one!)? Is the runtime memory use decent?
>4) can you except a reasonably complex VFP9 application - with its pack of dependencies to activeX and COM-based stuff (both MS-Office and third-parties) to work decently ? Is that true for the 64-bit version as well?
>5) deployment conditions of the executables built with Chuanbing tools?
>
>A bit lost on these questions. Sorry if I am a bit dumb here!
>
>Daniel