Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: De-macification of the Amiga (Re: The Amiga's Future)
Keywords: Future, Amiga, etc.
Message-ID: <51084@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 24 Jun 91 02:48:10 GMT
References: <81@ryptyde.UUCP> <1991Jun22.020815.233@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> <95@ryptyde.UUCP> <1991Jun23.145612.16729@Sugar.NeoSoft.com>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 25

In article <1991Jun23.145612.16729@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>If the Mac has had an equivalent to shared libraries, then why are Mac
>programs so large? Most Amiga programs are under 50K:

Please be so good as to define "most" Mac programs.  I'm betting you're
comparing Amiga utilities to commercial Mac applications.  However, I'll take
up your claim.  I ftp'd sumex-aim (36.44.0.6) and listed out all the files in
the /info-mac/util directory.  Of 161 files in that directory, 89 were under
your 50k limit.  Add in the fact that they are stored in the bloated Binhex
format (figure a quarter to a third size increase), and the fact that a lot
of the documentation includes bitmapped screen shots, and you will probably
find that Mac programs aren't all that big.

Just for grins I did the same with /info-mac/app.  Only 25 of 88 files were
under 50k, but taking into consideration the overhead of Binhex files and
assuming some additional overhead for documention, I think your 50k metric
would be met by the contents of that directory as well.

It may well be that Mac programs are in general larger than an Amiga program
with the same feature set, but the quote above isn't proof.

(I was tempted to do a list of the desk accesory directory at sumex since DAs
are applications under System 7.0, but that would stack the numbers WAY in
my favor.)