Re: huge executable?? - worry no more

["Tom Hargraves" <tharg@vtcinet.com>]

I used to worry about the 'unreadability' of machine code, but then those
systems were superceded by 'superior' high-level language implemented
systems, so I wasn't worried anymore.

I used to think that the 'enormous' size of compiled Ada images was
important, but then disk space and processor speed continued to double every
6 months, so I was not worried anymore.

I used to worry about the fallacy of 'industry standard' C, and then
certified 'standard' Ada came along, so I was not worried anymore.

Now Ada 95 incompatibilities with Ada 93 has us discussing whether the
latter is obsolete.
I could be worried, but  Ada 200X will come along, and I won't be worried
anymore.

In my rambling experience, currently Ada is as good as it gets for helping
the engineer produce a quality product. Executable size is a 'lesser issue'
for most Ada projects. If it is an issue, you can compile and link disabling
all that nice Ada checking etc. and end up with a readable 'C/C++' program
(with the same unpredictable behaviour of course!).

I used to worry that in 10 years time, everything I was currently learning
would be obsolete.

My advice is not to worry any more.

Regards,
Unworried Tom.


"Geoff Bull" <geoff@research.canon.com.au> wrote in message
news:392091E9.20999FBE@research.canon.com.au...
> Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> >
> > * Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > >Basically the issue here boils down to disk costs alone. Seeing
> > >as 128K bytes is approximately $0.004 worth of disk space, I
> > >don't see this as a big worry these days :-)
> >
> > I'm developing for Systems with 8 MB RAM and 64 kb RAM.
>
> So?