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,e9f27bbe0678fdfc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Tom Hargraves" Subject: Re: huge executable?? - worry no more Date: 2000/05/16 Message-ID: <3920fbbd@rsl2.rslnet.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 623963101 References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com> <9EET4.760$pN4.423580@news.pacbell.net> <3920DA5B.2F56@club-internet.fr> <8fpu0g$a3e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <392091E9.20999FBE@research.canon.com.au> X-Trace: 16 May 2000 00:41:49 -0800, van163-117.imag.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Date: 2000-05-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I used to worry about the 'unreadability' of machine code, but then those systems were superceded by 'superior' high-level language implemented systems, so I wasn't worried anymore.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 Now Ada 95 incompatibilities with Ada 93 has us discussing whether the latter is obsolete.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" 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?