Levi Pearson wrote: > On Mar 21, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Gregory Hill wrote: > >> Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of an example of why >> relying on external modules can be bad. In Perl, the standard POSIX >> module takes up over 1MB of memory. When I was working at Navitaire, we >> had one module that relied on POSIX, but only for 2 or 3 extremely >> simple functions. So, in order to cut down the memory footprint of our >> code, we dropped POSIX and implemented those same functions internally. >> So, we added probably 10 lines of code to our program, but dropped over >> 1MB out of a 20MB memory footprint (per apache process). > > So, where do you draw the line between 'language' and 'library'? Does > a language's standard library count? You couldn't write much of a > program in C without its standard library. What about Java? It ships > with a huge number of standard libraries. Which of those would you > allow? > > How do you take into account the runtime system of a language? C has > a pretty small runtime support library, C++ has a larger one, and Java > and other virtual machine-based or interpreted languages are on a > whole different scale. > > All languages are implemented by someone else's code, and their power > to make programs short relies upon that fact. Not allowing libraries > is silly, because it's difficult to define what constitutes a library > and libraries do not necessarily constitute the largest part of a > program's memory footprint even when they are used. The important thing... is how come nobody used my bash shell script version in all this? > > --Levi > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
