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: 1996/04/18
Message-ID: <dewar.829886092@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 148363542
references: <4kmq7a$egm@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <dewar.829400646@schonberg>
 <4l0o3s$hgt@utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl> <31742475.1CFBAE39@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
 <dewar.829700517@schonberg> <31765239.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

T.E.D. says (replying to me)

"> 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.

Well....actually no, that doesn't miss that value. If you read the
text you quoted, it says, "...unless you have other applications running
simultaniously on the system using those DLL's...""

Ted, you missed it again!!!!

The point is that DLL's are valuable even if the applications do NOT
run simultaneously. Read my paragraph again, the key word is successive,
i.e. non-simultaneous!