<html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /></head><body style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Cursor">
<p>On Saturday 08 January 2011 21:40:07 Duke Normandin wrote:</p>
<p><span style="color:#008000">> "one incarnation of every procedure used" => OK makes sense</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#008000">> "nothing more" => meaning no other un-used procedures from the</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#008000">> IMPORTed modules, or meaning no 2nd or 3rd etc copy of used</span></p>
<p><span style="color:#008000">> procedures?</span></p>
<p></p>
<p>It's all a bit immaterial. If you want tight code, use assembler or Forth.</p>
<p>If you want to program in a safe language with a rather wide comfort zone, use Oberon or Modula-2 (in FQI mode).</p>
<p></p>
<p>On a 4 x 3 GHz PC with 4 GB of memory and 1000 GB of diskspace, code- and source size are meaningless.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Until 1997 I mainly programmed in assembler. For lots of reasons. Then, I realized that it didn't matter anymore which language I chose. Small programs in BASIC ran just as fast as their ASM equivalent. So I chose a new language: Modula-2. Just because it was available AND it seemed to fit in with my person(ality).</p>
<p></p>
<p>On the other hand, the byte code produced by the obc is so small. And it runs so fast. It's meaningless to shave off bits.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Mocka:</p>
<p> source = 1.033 bytes</p>
<p> executable = 23.304 bytes</p>
<p>OBC:</p>
<p> source = 966 bytes</p>
<p> bytecode file = 5253 bytes</p>
<p></p>
<p>The obc generates Oberon byte code that is 75% tighter than Modula-2 machine code and runs equally fast.</p>
<p></p>
<p>http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/obc/obc5.html</p>
<p></p>
<p>-- </p>
<p>Met vriendelijke groeten,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Jan Verhoeven</p>
<p>http://www.verhoeven272.nl</p>
<p></p>
</body></html>