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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1bce3f54cf1cba1b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Theodore E. Dennison" Subject: Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go? Date: 1996/04/18 Message-ID: <31765239.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 148192935 references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <4l0o3s$hgt@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl> <31742475.1CFBAE39@escmail.orl.mmc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Date: 1996-04-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > T.E.D says > > "Of course you realize that unless you have other applications running > simultaniously on the system using those DLL's, you havent gained > anything. You've just split your executable into several files. All > the bytes are still there." > > That completely misses the biggest value of DLL's, which is that they > stay loaded as you load subsequent applications. Suppose you have a > 2 meg DLL and 30 successive small executables that are loaded. This > will be MUCH more efficient than loading 30 successive 2 meg executables. > DLL's are useful in improving performance even if there is never a case > of simultaneous use. Well....actually no, that doesn't miss that value. If you read the text you quoted, it says, "...unless you have other applications running simultaniously on the system using those DLL's..." -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |