Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:2040 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:134
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Standard for file transmission
Message-ID: <4748@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 88 13:56:39 GMT
References: <292@cullsj.UUCP> <696@fig.bbn.com> <18621@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10712@steinmetz.ge.com> <552@csccat.UUCP>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 30
Keywords: best compression method

>	Let me point out one simple fact: source code is VERY MUCH 
>	SMALLER than binaries.

This is not clear.

For small programs in a high-level compiled language (like C), this is
true:  This is because the small program pulls in the language run-time
library.  The source is much smaller than the resulting executable:
However, I would bet that the object file (before linking) would be
about the same size as the source (even WITH the symbol table and
relocation information).

Assembly language source usually run about 10 times larger than the
resulting executable.

Large C program (64k+) source usually runs two to three times larger
than the resulting executable.  Of course, I find source code more
valuable:  I can make changes to suit my environment, or I can port the
program to a different machine entirely.  And of course, with an
operating system like UNIX which runs on a plethora of machines,
source code is the only acceptable distribution mechanism.

Other languages have different source/binary size ratios.  Some
languages can generate a lot of code with a very small amount of
source.  However, most of the source code posted to USENET is C.
-- 
     john nelson

UUCP:            {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
ARPA (sort of):  talcott.harvard.edu!panda!teddy!jpn