OpenEuphoria

Re: Bind Problems ...

• Posted by "Boehme, Gabriel" <gboehme at POBOXB1.HQ.MSMAIL.MUSICLAND.COM> Jun 28, 1999
• 633 views

Roderick Jackson wrote:

>Robert Craig wrote:
[snip]
>>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? [snip]

Er, no -- your given examples are too implausible to convince me.

Later, Roderick Jackson wrote:

>[snip]
>I realize my argument against the idea sounds a bit self-serving, but then
>again the impact would be somewhat farther reaching than just the few
>things I've produced. We're talking about eliminating entire ways of
>working in the language here, all for the sake of shrinking (compiled, not
>source) code. I would rather see an effort to produce smaller, possibly
>more numerous libraries rather than see it all come to that.

Rod...I *REALLY* think you're getting all worked up over nothing here. First
of all, I'm sure this discarding of unused routines/variables/constants
would be in the bind program as a command-line *option*. Secondly, this idea
makes a lot of sense for almost every situation, and it seems a bit silly to
throw it away entirely. Thirdly, this would *only* happen with bound or
shrouded code, so I don't see why dynamic include methods would have any
problems. Finally, I'm sure Rob would make it so that the binder is *smart*,
and only gets rid of stuff it definitely won't need.

I for one think Rob's idea is wonderful -- it'll help cut down on the size
of bound code, and I won't mind including a whole library just for one
routine. (As things are now, I'm tempted just to code that one routine
manually into my program and forget the include library...) Having it in the
bind program as one of the command-line options should cover all situations
quite nicely, IMHO.

Be seeing you,
   Gabriel Boehme