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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)
Subject: Re: huge executable??
Date: 2000/05/15
Message-ID: <8fpt36$aai1@news.cis.okstate.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 625346714
References: <391E09C3.FA04871E@mailandnews.com>
 <9EET4.760$pN4.423580@news.pacbell.net>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux)
Reply-To: dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 14 May 2000 21:11:33 GMT, tmoran@bix.com <tmoran@bix.com> wrote:
>  The more important question is, is size a problem with real
>programs that do something substantial.

Sometimes. Think about writing Tom's Root/Boot Disk (one floppy Linux
rescue disk) in Ada. It couldn't be compiled with gnat, because between
libc (which libgnat depends on) and libgnat, you'd fill the 1.7M floppy
well before you got any working code.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org

The hell that is supposedly out there could be no worse than
the hell that is sometimes seen in here.