Re: Executable File Size Differences

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <324D6631.4F3F@ghgcorp.com> Stanley Allen <sallen@ghgcorp.com> writes:

> But this is still unacceptable isn't it?  Why should "Hello, world"
> take 83K of executable code?  Maybe Microsoft C++ is using a DLL
> for the I/O and ObjectAda is including it in the EXE.  But I'll bet
> ObjectAda *is* using DLL's too, and that there's another reason.

First it is a constant overhead.  Second you are wrong - ObjectAda
does not currently use a DLL for this and will move to the size of the
MSVC version when it does (as noted by a Thomson engineer in another
reply).  So you are just wrong.



> I'm glad someone brought this topic up, because I've been
> waiting for a chance to get on a soapbox.

Well, your soapbox just collapsed - being based on completely
erroneous ideas and unsound thinking.  This in turn makes your
subsequent rant make you look like a fool.


> But in a large office complex with 100+ PC, careful thinking must be
> given to purchasing a new WWW browser that would require bumping
> everyone's RAM up by 8Mb or more.  And IMHO, this is the kind of
> thing that would happen if current Ada compilers were used as the
> development tool for producing that new browser.

You can't be serious.  MSWord alone can't be usefully used anymore
without vast amounts of RAM and even then it is dead slow.  In fact,
much common PC software (typically MS produced...) is hugely bloated
and snail paced.  If any of what you said about size issues affecting
PC usability were true, none of these packages would be used.  But we
all know that they are (unfortunately).

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com