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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT Executables: How low can you go? Date: 1996/04/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147933102 references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <4l0o3s$hgt@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl> <31742475.1CFBAE39@escmail.orl.mmc.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: T.E.D says "Of course you realize that unless you have other applications running simultaniously on the system using those DLL's, you havent gained anything. You've just split your executable into several files. All the bytes are still there." That completely misses the biggest value of DLL's, which is that they stay loaded as you load subsequent applications. Suppose you have a 2 meg DLL and 30 successive small executables that are loaded. This will be MUCH more efficient than loading 30 successive 2 meg executables. DLL's are useful in improving performance even if there is never a case of simultaneous use.