Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire.wright.edu!wright!sdawalt
From: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu (Shane Dawalt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.192916.23098@cs.wright.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 19:29:16 GMT
References: <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University
Lines: 27

From article <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, by mg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan):
> 
> Brand new borland.com, are you listening? Prove us wrong or
> give us a (slow version) compiler that produces shorter code!
> 

  Is there a reason to care how large the file is?  If it's an application
(which it is) and if it runs under windows (which it does) then let Windows
worry about memory space.  Your machine should have a good amount of space if
you are running Windows.  Disk space isn't a problem since hard drives are
relatively inexpensive.  Loading speed isn't a problem since only part of the
program is loaded by Windows.  Execution speed is the major consideration
nowadays.  A database program can be 50K in size, but if it takes 1 hour to
search through 50 records then the program is absolutely useless.  If your
concern is distribution then you can use archivers that compress an
.EXE up to 50% (depending upon the .EXE itself).

  What would anyone want a SLOW compiler???  Everyone hollars for faster
compilers and code.  What is this, two steps forward and three steps back?

  Shane();

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the keyboard of:			     email: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu
	Shane A. Dawalt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------