Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius L. Hilley III <lhilley at CDC.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size
> 1st your 1 gig HD is puny by todays standards.
I picked the size at random, anyone's hd size wasn't the point of my email,
it's irrelevant, would you have been more biting if i had said i know
someone running linux on a 286 and a 20 meg hd?
> 2nd it isn't th HD space we are trying to conserve.
I know that, but Eu will virtualize all the memory you need on the hd, or am
i mistaken?
> Assume that this new byte scheme BLOATS Euphoria into the
> 800 KB realm. So now as Rob says, You are WASTING 80 KB more
> than you where before. Assume you have written a program that
> under the old scheme abused 16,000 KB of memory. But, using
> the new byte scheme you could store the same amount of data
> using only 4,000 KB. This frees up 12,000 KB of memory.
> When you are freeing up 12,000 KB who cares about the 80 KB
> wasted?
While you try to lock Euphoria into 8 bits per character, i'd like to refer
everyone else to http://www.unicode.org/ , where the standard is 16 bits,
for the reasons i gave earlier.
Kat.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
