Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm
From: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: autoload (was: Re: Against the Tide of Common LISP)
Message-ID: <359@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Feb-87 14:39:30 EST
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.359
Posted: Mon Feb 16 14:39:30 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Feb-87 03:46:16 EST
References: <2581@well.UUCP> <2582@well.UUCP> <4296@utah-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (Michael Maxwell)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 19

In article <4296@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes:
>...
>programs are continually loading this module or that module.  PSL for instance
>has hundreds of modules that can be loaded, but it's a pain in practice to
>forget one of them (and autoloading has its disadvantages as well)...

I'm curious: what's the disadvantage (besides the time it takes to do it)
of autoloading?  We're using a version of Common Lisp that takes up
something over 5 megs just for itself, before we even load in any functions
When we ran in Franz, we used a *lot* less space.  I suspect
that a lot of the difference is in the parts of CL that are over and
above Franz (ratios, real numbers, ad infinitum) and most of which I
have no use for, plus the things that Franz autoloaded (machacks, the tracer,
etc.).  What's the disadvantage to autoloading?
-- 
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Advanced Technology Center
	arpa: michaelm@boeing.com
	uucp: uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm