From: kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:08:51 -0500 Message-Id: <9611261608.AA09993@quasar.bloomberg.com > To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il Cc: x-aes AT telelogic DOT se, djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:04:13 +0200 (IST)) Subject: Re: less quirks, dies in win95 dos window.. Reply-To: kagel AT dg1 DOT bloomberg DOT com Errors-To: postmaster AT bloomberg DOT com Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:04:13 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is Cc: x-aes AT telelogic DOT se, djgpp AT delorie DOT com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 847 On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com wrote: > ~40bytes * >1600modules ~~ >64K call it 80K? IFF you include the entire I got bashed more than once for adding much less (circa 5K) to a function that gets linked into every DJGPP program. So much for perspective and scale. > You do the exercise, I already have in order to convince 250 programmers here > at Bloomberg! The savings in headache and debugging to track the fact that > someone forgot to add the new version of module 'X' to the library before > linking or forgot to move the latest executable to production is worth almost > any overhead! Cool down, in our case only a single person (DJ) releases the library. Anybody else (like me) who patches their own version, does so on their own responsibility (and yes, I have my private version management procedures too). OK, I'm cool. I guess my prospective has been skewed by the 110MB executables we build around here and the large development teams. At any rate 'we' could add Version strings to the utility and tool code lines, though most of that comes from FSF, AARRGGHH. Oh well it was a nice thought. Unless we can convince FSF to introduce the version strings in tool code?! -- Art S. Kagel, kagel AT quasar DOT bloomberg DOT com A proverb is no proverb to you 'till life has illustrated it. -- John Keats