OpenEuphoria

RE: Euphoria 2.5 Features..... ??

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com> Dec 05, 2003
• 526 views

Mario Steele wrote:
> *bonks himself*
> 
> Okay, maybe not 100k, but instead of 73k, more like 54k, or 
> smaller.  You have to think about how much of that, is reading 
> routines, and  interpreting said code, into objective code, then 
> actual execution.  Especially in defining keywords, instead of 
> their counterpart tokenized objective code. :P  If that makes any 
> sense.

I'm looking at the size of the .obj files from my modified interpreter, 
compiled by OpenWatcom 1.0.  The scanner makes up about 23% of the sum 
of the sizes of all .obj files (where said sum is just slightly less 
than the size of the .exe).  The scanner itself is only 8% (I'm not 
entirely clear on what y  Let's assume that you can eliminate all 8%.  
After UPX, I get a file that's 44% the size of the original executable 
(mine is 76k vs the official 72k).  

Supposing that these things all remain constant, I would expect to have 
a 'binding executable' of about 70k--8%, or about 6k smaller than the 
original.  DOS would be different, since we don't use UPX, and the 
executable is bigger anyways (I think because of the graphics and 
Causeway), but Linux would probably be very close.

My personal opinion is that you probably don't gain much in size 
relative to the problems this will create.  Rob will basically have to 
write a separate translator to translate into Eu objective code, or 
whatever, plus be able to use it, and then fix all the weird bugs, which 
will be difficult to track down, given the already cryptic error 
messages you get from bound or shrouded files.  Also, I suspect that 
programs that people will consider worthy of binding are going to be 
considerably larger than the overhead of the interpreter (pick your 
favorite GUI libarary), let alone this potential 6k (or even the entire 
76k!) reduction in size.

Matt Lewis