Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!cbatt!cwruecmp!bammi
From: bammi@cwruecmp.UUCP (Jwahar R. Bammi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Tyro questions
Message-ID: <1691@cwruecmp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Dec-86 14:33:21 EST
Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1691
Posted: Tue Dec  9 14:33:21 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Dec-86 04:12:42 EST
References: <4740@ism780c.UUCP> <29@oresoft.UUCP> <4808@ism780c.UUCP>
Reply-To: bammi@cwruecmp.UUCP (Jwahar R. Bammi)
Distribution: net
Organization: CWRU Dept. of Computer Engineering, Cleveland OH
Lines: 23

In article <4808@ism780c.UUCP> darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) writes:
>
>Has anyone else noticed that Wirth's module concept leads to innefficient
>systems?  As a side note, the compiler I use is from his group at ETH.  My
>machine doesn't support floating point in hardware, so the module SYSTEM
>includes routines for all the needed floating point code.  This means that all
>programs that I build have a complete floating point interpretter in them,
>even though I rarely (not so far) use it.  The linker doesn't know whether
>some procedures within a given module are used or not, so all of them are
>brought into the image.  Can the linker know what is needed and what is not?

I don't see the connection between  the concept of modules and your problem.
Its just your implementation that is inefficient (read bad implementation
choice). Take a look at systems like the Apollo Aegis that allows dynamic
binding (at run time) of libraries, regardless of the language used. Even
if your OS does'nt support dynamic binding a decent linker should only bring
in parts of modules that are actually referenced (for example look at
the TDI modula system).
-- 
usenet: .....!decvax!cwruecmp!bammi		jwahar r. bammi
csnet:       bammi@case
arpa:        bammi%case@csnet-relay
compuServe:  71515,155