From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!pvarner
From: pvarner@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Paul A. Varner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Executible Program size (was Re: tasking in language a bad idea)
Message-ID: <1613@blackbird.afit.af.mil>
Date: 4 Jun 90 19:22:04 GMT
References: <20104@grebyn.com>
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <20104@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
>Yes.  He is misguided.... [Stuff Deleted]
> 
>The authors are misguided.... [Stuff Deleted]

First, What makes a person misguided?  Is it because he doesn't agree
with your views???  Let me know WHY they are misguided.

>1.  Ada versions which I've seen leave out nothing;  small programs
>compile to several hundred K bytes.  My understanding has always been
>that this is required by the nature of the language.

Secondly, this is a function of the COMPILER not the language.  I agree that
Ada compilers can be pretty lacking in features and pretty stupid.  However,
they are getting there.  Using the test that you posted earlier.  I compiled
"Hello, World" in Ada, C, and Pascal on my 286 machine using Janus Ada, Turbo
C, and Turbo Pascal.  All three executible files were in the same ballpark.
Here are the results in file size:

     Janus ada   : HELLO.COM - 7265 bytes
     Turbo C     : HELLO.COM - 6048 bytes
     Turbo Pascal: HELLO.EXE - 3296 bytes

I fail to see the several hundred K bytes that you mentioned above.

Paul Varner
pvarner@blackbird.afit.af.mil