Compiler Performance in OE Dev Studio (_progres vs prowin32)

My organization has been putting off the adoption of OE Architect for a while.

For one, it seems more natural to develop TTY applications in a TTY development environment (ie. using the "vi" editor).  For two, the performance in OE Architect for compiling TTY apps was always very bad (worse than non-TTY).

As it turns out, there is a link between TTY application development and compiler performance in OE Architect.  They are linked in an obscure way that you would never expect.  If you are compiling programs that target the TTY runtime, it has always costed at least 300 ms of overhead *per program*.  The additional overhead was buried somewhere in the _progress.exe runtime environment (vs. prowin32.exe) .

The good news is that in version 11 of OE Dev Studio, there seems to be a way to improve compiler performance for TTY applications.  Performance now seems comparable to compiling non-TTY applications.

But there is a trick to it.  The trick is (*drum roll*) to check the new project option that says "Hide TTY runtime console".  This improves compile performance by a factor of almost 10 for us (results may differ based on the relative cost of the 300 ms overhead).

Does this cause anyone else to scratch their heads in amazement?  Was the primary purpose of this new option to improve esthetics or to improve performance?  Is the performance improvement just an unintended consequence?  If so, the unintended consequence is certainly a very welcome change.  They should re-label this option to say "Turbo Compile for TTY".

Does anyone else use TTY with OE Dev Studio 11?  Can you confirm a performance improvement when this option is used?

Thanks, David