From: Stefan Pantke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:55:44 +0100
Am 20.02.2006 um 22:26 schrieb Brad Hutchings:
Fair enough question. And I didn't see that before. However, if
you're talking about multiple console tools that might be used
together for a process, you have to amortize the size of the
framework over the number of tools.
You've done this? Is it practical? Does it impose no limits on
distribution? Does it impose any other kind of restrictions on use?
So Theo's contention that 5
tools means 10 MBs of code needs to be loaded is BS.
I think the word you are looking for is "wrong", not BS. Not that I
agree that it is wrong.
So the console app doesn't include the library?
Does the console app put/copy the library at a well know
dylib-loader location of OS X? If not, how does the OS know,
that several dylibs of different tools are identical?
All the tool needs to tell the OS, is what C function names it links
to, and get the address of them.
Many C shell tools can be made with only using very simple Unix
calls, like fopen or open or malloc.
It doesn't make sense to say that because C tools use malloc and
malloc is provided by the system, that means the C tools are unfairly
small looking.
Because RB uses OS provided calls for pretty much the same things,
anyhow. RB might use NewPtr on Classic, or FSRef functions on
Carbon... so it also should be small, right?
--
http://elfdata.com/plugin/
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
