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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpcc01!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM
From: defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Executible Program size (was Re: tasking in language a bad idea)
Message-ID: <920023@hpclapd.HP.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 90 16:31:02 GMT
References: <20104@grebyn.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>/ hpclapd:comp.lang.ada / ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) /  7:42 pm  Jun  3, 1990 /

>>There are two pretty obvious responses to this objection, both of them
>>convincing.  (1) It's an implementation issue, not a language design issue.
>>Why can't a compiler, in principle, simply leave out the tasking part if it's
>>not used?  (2) Use a different language.  Neither Ada nor your favorite
>>language is the perfect language for every application.  If you don't need
>>tasking, and your Ada compliler insists on including a lot of extra baggage,
>>use a different language.
> 
>1.  Ada versions which I've seen leave out nothing;  small programs
>compile to several hundred K bytes.  My understanding has always been
>that this is required by the nature of the language.

HP's version of  Ada does  NOT include any of the  tasking support code for
any program that does not use any tasking constructs.  Thus is satisfies #1
and nullifies #2.   I suspect that many other  Ada compilers  also do this.
Perhaps earily versions of Ada compilers used to  leave it in.  When is the
last time that you have used an Ada compiler Ted?