*SNIP*
>The question is, if compression involves a one-time, five-minute
> cost on the part of the developer and saves everyone a few seconds of
> download time and a few K of HD space, then why not? Why have bloated
code?
> I sure like looking at 200K executables instead of megabyte and larger
> things. Makes me think of my old 486 where everything fit in 120MB.
Everything I have seen of it, and heard of it, leaves more questions than
answers.
*SNIP*
> No, the decompression cost is not paid again and again while the
executable
> runs: there is no (significant) memory cost or compute
*SNIP*
>"Your executables suffer no memory overhead or other
>drawbacks". Also, "very fast decompression: more than 10 MB/sec even on my
>old Pentium 133", "no memory overhead for your compressed executables",
So basically this is like the magical compression fairy that touches the
code once and
we never have to worry about it again? Not to be harsh or blunt, but these
statements
should be like huge red flags. There is no memory overhead.. i.e. nothing
but the compressed
executable; however this magically touched executable contains the code that
decompresses it?
hmmm...
Even if everything was as stated... there are just too many questions left
unanswered for me to
feel like risking it. Besides, I feel better with a "bloated" megabyte on
my HD than a lean mean
200KB from the compression fairy.
Sorry... I am being harsh.... but I am having a hard time seeing this in
any other way.
- Jeramy
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
