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: akc1@ix.netcom.com(Al Christians)
Subject: Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go?
Date: 1996/04/20
Message-ID: <4la39f$ils@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 150748263
references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <dewar.829400646@schonberg>
 <4l0o3s$hgt@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl> <31742475.1CFBAE39@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
 <Pine.SUN.3.91.960417100245.1349B-100000@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl>
 <317688E9.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Sat Apr 20  2:21:19 AM CDT 1996
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-20T02:21:19-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <317688E9.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> "Theodore E. Dennison"      

>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.

I have worked in situations with networked DOS PC's in which the
executable sizes are very important.  Some systems are too big to be a
single executable, so client PC's must load executables repeatedly as
the users switch from task to task.  Even compact executables represent
a large portion of the load on the network, which is often close to
capacity.  The difference between compact and bloated executables is
critical in these cases.


Al