OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Object Oriented Programming

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com> Jan 02, 2007
• 1092 views

Bernie Ryan wrote:
> 
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > No kidding.  ooeu compiles to about 200K larger than stock exw under 
> > Open Watcom.  That's the difference between including win32lib or not
> > including win32lib on a bound executable (when no win32lib routines 
> > are used).  To me, personally, this is negligible.
> > 
> 
> I was talking about binding programs not using the 'C' compiler.

I know.  So was I.  I looked at the difference in interpreter size (exw 
vs ooeu) and then bound a trivial program with and without including 
win32lib and compared the results.
 
> When you run shroud for 2.4 it stripped out all the unused functions
> and constants.

Not exactly (though 3.0 does the same thing).  It stripped out what it 
could prove wasn't used.  As the win32lib example shows, even though I 
simply included win32lib and didn't call anything, the initialization, 
etc forced 200K worth of stuff to be added to the *bound* executable.

> Not everyone that uses Euphoria wants and extra 200k that they are
> not using.

So I'll ask again, why not?  How does that extra 200K matter?  You're 
using this argument to justify a course of action, and so far, your 
argument is equivalent to "Because I said so."

If we were talking about 20MB (like, say, the .Net runtime) then I might
agree with you that you had a point without going further.  But it's
a whole lot smaller than that.  Please explain the situation where 200K
extra in an executable is a real problem.
 
> If I wanted to use OOP I would use I would use C++.

So what?  By this argument, no feature should ever be added to Euphoria
if it exists in another language.  I'm not arguing that everything ever
imagined should be in Euphoria, but again, you haven't made a good 
argument for excluding OOP from Euphoria.

Matt