On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:06:36 +0100, Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> L.D wrote:
>> A number of us have, for a number of releases, asked why string lengths
>> were still so limited and thus Arachne crippled. The response was
>> always "it uses memory"; but in recent releases memory usage has
>> dropped, so shouldn't there *finally* be room to store string lengths
>> that we're running across on more and more websites???
> That's up to Michael. With LSPPP there should be plenty of free
> conventional memory for everyone so I think that it should get raised
> sometime down the road (somewhere in 1.7x)
> //Bernie
The problem with Arachne's not accepting URL names having an "excessive"
length probably has nothing to do with the available memory when Arachne
is running and on line. The problem most likely lies in the program code.
In many programming languages one declares string variables which consist
of size limitations. The programmer can specify the size limitations for
his string variables. If the programmer allows for longer string variables
then his program will require more memory. While it is a good feature for
a program to permit long string variables, the downside is that the program
will require more memory. The price you pay for more and better features
is the extra demand on your limited memory resources. The use of more
efficient programming languages and tools and techniques can help to solve
the problem. I hope that may explain it.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
