Date:	Wed, 2 Aug 1995 08:34:03 -0400
From:	dj (DJ Delorie)
To:	jmccarty AT spd DOT dsccc DOT com
Cc:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject:	Re: ** Comparison between DJGPP V2 & WATCOM C V10 **

> )Don't stay up at night waiting.  Very few of those who have contributed
> )really give a damn about the size of "Hello, world!" compiled.
> )
> )Cut out the excess stuff yourself.  I don't think anyone else cares
> )enough to do it for you; we run applications, not hello-worlds.
> )
> )Morten
> 
> 
> This is about the 2nd most ridiculous post I've seen on such subjects.
> This fellow has hard facts to support a claim. You present nothing but
> arrogance. Present some numbers to back up your claim that with
> "applications" (whatever those are) the code is significantly better than
> other products or at least comparable, and so the case is different from
> what happens with "hello-worlds" (whatever those are), or just shut up
> and go away.

Maybe, but I haven't seen your name on any of the source code mail
I've received.  There are so few of us working on djgpp itself (and
not just using it) that we just can't take the time to worry about
non-real-world stuff.  This explains the first comment - if YOU don't
do something about the parts that bother you, chances are, nobody else
will either.  Morten has done a lot of work on djgpp, so he knows
about this first-hand.

The hard facts are that djgpp, by default, includes extra
functionality that most people will use.  If you don't want it, you
can tell djgpp to not use it.

The smallest programs I can generate with this method are:

	15,364	main(), no printf
	24,580  main() with printf
	33,284  main(), printf(), and extra functionality

It compiles in a fraction of a second, too, and history has shown that
the resulting program will run faster than most other compilers.

- Raw text -