smaller exe's
> It would be possible for me to produce a "stripped-down"
> version of ex.exe that would omit some compile-time
> stuff and the debugging (tracing) and profiling stuff. I once calculated
> how much I could eliminate, and concluded
> that it wouldn't be all that much (maybe 20%). Furthermore, it would
> make life more complicated for me if I had to build and distribute
> PD and Complete *and* "stripped-down" versions of both
> ex.exe and exw.exe.
I consider 20 % very worthwhile. On 150K it saves 30 seconds download time.
How about making the compile-time stuff a separate executable ? This would not
cause any extra trouble in ed, for example, but could give the option of
running a programme with no checking. For a proven programme that is either
very long or running on a slow computer, this would save a horrendous wait and
allow almost instantaneous execution. Do you think this could be more
practical ? It might also allow you to share a compiler/syntax checker between
ex and exw...
Another idea is to have binary/machine include files. This could shrink ex and
exw considerably as all the built-in routines would be external. Then, when
binding, only the necessary include files would need to be included, and other
people could write themselves custom routines which need the extra magnitude
of speed provided by machine routines.
Enough ramblings, I hope these ideas are useful.
Daniel Johnson, Les Mailles Telesoft, Coventry, England
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
