Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go?

["Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>]

Geert Bosch wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Theodore E. Dennison wrote:
> > 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.

>I didn't expect to have to defend why small executables are an 
>advantage, but I'll try to list some reasons:

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying small /= good. I'm 
just saying:
  o  if your DLL isn't reused, you have gained nothing
  o  there are WAY better things to worry about (on a PC) than 
     executable size.

>  *  Disk space: typical combined savings of using dynamic linking with
>     the GNAT RTL, using LINK386 instead of ld and using compression are
>     are in the 100-350 kB per executable.  I've got 95 GNAT
>     executables, which is good for a saving of 10 - 30 MB. (The 250 kB

OK. So your "extreme case" leaves me with a situation where the sum 
total of the size of my exectuables takes up about 3% of my typical
1 Gig hard disk. I'm not impressed. Again, I'll bet my "temp" 
directory for Webexplorer has more than 30 MB of files in it.

>  *  I don't want my utility to be 10x as big as one written in C
>     (Most C programmers use the emx DLL's)

If we  were talking embedded system, fine. But we're talking OS/2 
systems here. OS/2 platforms are PCs, which these days come with 
oodles of hard disk space. In such an environment, executable size
just isn't a real concern. I want programs to be robust, not squeezed.

>     If I wrote a bunch of Unix-like commands for OS/2 using Ada and
>     they would be 100-200kB each, nobody would use my Unix utilities.
>     On the other hand, if they would be 10-20kB each, but you'd need
>     the 250 kB GNAT RTL everybody would think that would be reasonable,

Actually, I'd bet you are wrong here. I personally HATE getting 
utilities, only to discover that they won't work because they are
missing some RTL. I'd much rather get a stand-alone application, 
especially when we are talking unix-like utilities which are typically
NOT run simultaniously. It really annoys me when I have to fuss with 
some stupid DLL that is only used by this ONE program I have.

>     executables.  When my little utilities are 100-200 kB each, I don't
>     have the slighest chance of getting the language (or the
>     applications produced by it) accepted: I'd only reconfirm the
>     perception of Ada as large and bloated.

So what you are saying is this is a marketing issue?

Again, I don't believe you here. I don't bat an eylash at any
executable less than one MEG. If someone raises nonsense such as
executable size as argument against Ada, you're just wasting your 
time trying to placate them. They will just keep shifting their 
argument, becuase the real problem isn't executable size, its that
its not C. Don't even bother.


-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |