Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/03/30/09:00:27
> At 06:57 3/29/1998 +0200, Nils Emil P. Larsen wrote:
> >I don't know why, but I diden't like EXE-files larger than 50 KB and I have
> >no technical reason for that....
50K isn't much nowadays...
Nate Eldredge (eldredge AT ap DOT net) wrote:
> After all, even many real-mode DOS executables are larger than 50K (Turbo C,
> for instance, is around 450K). And in Unix, large executables are the norm
> (I think my Linux box has an Emacs executable of about 2M, and that's with
> shared libraries!). The traditional DOS scheme of a small executable and
> many overlay files or other loadable code is a relic of the days when 64K
> was a lot of memory.
Yeah, 640K should be enough for everybody...
On this SunOS-Sparc:
/home/mdruiter/ $ ls -al `which emacs ls`
... 16644 May 3 1996 /usr/bin/ls
... 3418992 Jun 23 1997 /usr/local/public/bin/emacs
Emacs' executable being large is very probably because Emacs can do
everything :-) And because it contains a lot of strings.
--
Groeten, Michel. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mdruiter
\----/==\----/
\ / \ / "You know, Beavis, you need things that suck,
\/ \/ to have things that are cool", Butt-Head.
- Raw text -