To:	editor AT juno DOT com
Cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
References:	<19970921 DOT 154807 DOT 6423 DOT 0 DOT editor AT juno DOT com>
Message-Id:	<AHMtO9qmRC@belous.munic.msk.su>
From:	"Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:12:54 +0400 (MSD)
Organization:	Locus
Reply-To:	ark AT mos DOT ru
Subject:	Re: source code
Lines:	21
MIME-Version:	1.0

X-Comment-To: Bruce Morgen

Hi!

21-σΕΞ-97 15:49 editor AT juno DOT com (Bruce Morgen) wrote to bscholl AT eznet DOT net:
 > On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Ben Schollnick
 > <bscholl AT eznet DOT net> writes:

 > >So, if you can optimize the algorithiu, sure it'll be slightly slower than
 > >assembly (maybe by 5%? depending on application), but it'll be easier
 > >to keep upgraded...
[...]
 > On the other side of the coin, I've seen *ludicrous* results from some
 > assembler-to-C++ conversions.  I consulted for a network company that
 > had its control utilility translated into C++ and a bunch of command line
 > options added -- the tool went from 32K to 222K in a single rev.!  This
 > is no big deal for the general 386+ PC marketplace, but for folks using
 > slow CPUs or in situations where disk space is tight its bad news.

     Repeat: compare some dozens/hundreds _bytes_ of PCMag's attrib and
_packed_ 11K of attrib.exe from MS-DOS. 1000% of lost!

- Raw text -