Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!wtr@moss.ATT.COM
From: wtr@moss.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Standard for file transmission
Summary: well, here we go again!
Keywords: best compression method
Message-ID: <25980@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 May 88 12:07:12 GMT
References: <292@cullsj.UUCP> <696@fig.bbn.com> <18621@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10712@steinmetz.ge.com> <552@csccat.UUCP>
Sender: carl@clyde.ATT.COM
Reply-To: wtr@moss.UUCP (Bill Rankin)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 34

In article <552@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes:
>
>	Let me point out one simple fact: source code is VERY MUCH 
>	SMALLER than binaries.

Well, here we go again!

1290 -rw-r--r--   1 xxx      xxxxx     654848 Apr 24 20:29 ksh.cpio
 225 -rwxr-xr-x   1 xxx      xxxxx     113607 Apr 25 17:33 ksh*

well, folks, it seems that the distribution source (uncompressed)
is MUCH LARGER than the corresponding binary.

[I'm going to make some crude, probamatically wrong in xx% of all 
cases, observations.  Any attempt to find factual evidence below
this line, and i'll sue for 'look and feel' ;-]

It *SEEMS* (to me) that in smaller programs the binaries tend to be
larger than the original source, i believe because of the overhead
of the system code in proportion to the base source.  On larger 
programs, this ratio is much lower, and thus the source tends to
be larger than the corresponding executable.

[ ---> insert flames here <--- ]
[ and don't forget CYA! ]

=====================================================================
Bill Rankin
Bell Labs, Whippany NJ
(201) 386-4154 (cornet 232)

email address:		...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!wtr
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath  ]!clyde!wtr
=====================================================================