Re: Bind Problems (solved?)...
Robert Craig wrote:
>Mike Fowler writes:
>[a bunch of suggestions about the bind program]
>
>Thanks for the suggestions.
>In any redesign of bind, I would seriously consider making
>it 2-pass, so it could discard any routines, variables or
>constants that aren't used.
Hmmm. I hate to ask this Rob, but would that be the best way to go?
Sure, condensing code is a good thing and all, but couldn't this
seriously affect code performance/requirements between bound and unbound
code? Even to the extent that the code behaves differently?
An example: I have a program and want to include, in the source code, a
huge sequence (say, for a bitmap or something). I wouldn't actually type
it all out of course, but have a program that inserts it into the source
code.
Now, I'm almost done with the program, and want to test it out on the more
limited of my two systems (trying to insure that as many people can use it
as possible). I comment out the code that actually uses the sequence (which
is stored as a constant), but the constant itself I keep so that the memory
requirements won't differ that much from when I finish.
Now, if when the program were bound that explicit comment were ignored
because it wasn't being "used", the idea won't work. The program would be
eating into virtual memory a lot sooner, which would affect performance;
and heaven help me if I had designed the program to scale itself (more/less
objects, etc.) based on system resources. This sounds like an extrememly
unlikely case, but I've actually thought through the concept while toying
with some ideas...
Rod Jackson
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
