Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ns.uoregon.edu!milton!stevep
From: stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter, can you explain to the Amigoids (was: NeXT software size
Message-ID: <1991May10.013011.15944@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 01:30:11 GMT
References: <*05Gx0x&1@cs.psu.edu> <11877@uwm.edu>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News)
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Lines: 30

In article <11877@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>From article <*05Gx0x&1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger):
>> No, they will run at the same speed, unless you get swapping but that
>> will depend on how much memory you have.  Once the working set is in
>> the computer, it doesn't swap until it needs a page that isn't in
>> memory.
>
>Okay, I'll try again, because you're just not seeing what I see.  Any
>given processor can only run so many instructions per second, right?
>Right.  So if there are lots more instructions to run, it will be
>slower, right?  Right.
>
>> -rwxr-xr-x  1 melling  wheel      16384 May  6 18:13 a.out*
>
>That does tell me quite a bit.  16k to simply say "Hello, World".  Oh,
>boy.  That's advanced.  Even the A3000UX compiles it at something like
>1100 bytes.  Maybe your programs could be a little slimmer.  Or maybe
>it's just the NeXT problem in your list of many.
>

Lord.  There are all kinds of reasons for a.out to be 16K.  It hardly
means that the machine is going execute 16K of code.  Your 500K vs
2M argument is fundamentally flawed.  Once loaded, larger programs
may well be faster.  Many size/speed optimizations are at odds, you
know.  You're blowing smoke in general, and this is an absurd point to
rave about.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------