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: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: wolff@inf.fu-berlin.de (Thomas Wolff)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/30
Message-ID: <4tldre$lco@fu-berlin.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171044264
references: <4t7dvt$cbo@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <4t8rfo$g71@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> <Dv5KM9.B9F@world.std.com>
organization: Freie Universitaet Berlin
x-access: 16 17 19
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes:

: In article <4t8rfo$g71@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
: David Kristola <davidk@OS2.ifs> wrote:
: >Maybe i am misunderstanding the meaning of "distributed overhead", but don't
: >all shared generics have some?  But anyway...

: I think you're misunderstanding "distrib overhead".  "Feature X causes
: distributed overhead" means that your program will have some overhead,
: caused by the mere existence of feature X in the language, even if you
: don't use feature X.  If feature X is slow, that's just plain old
: overhead, not "distributed overhead".

Regarding the popularity of distributed systems, the terminology is 
confusing. Was it invented in this thread or is it common elsewhere? 
Perhaps something like "propagated overhead" should rather be used.