🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4808@ism780c.UUCP> darryl@ism780c.UUCP (Darryl Richman) writes:
>
>Has anyone else noticed that Wirth's module concept leads to innefficient
>systems?  As a side note, the compiler I use is from his group at ETH.  My
>machine doesn't support floating point in hardware, so the module SYSTEM
>includes routines for all the needed floating point code.  This means that all
>programs that I build have a complete floating point interpretter in them,
>even though I rarely (not so far) use it.  The linker doesn't know whether
>some procedures within a given module are used or not, so all of them are
>brought into the image.  Can the linker know what is needed and what is not?

I don't see the connection between  the concept of modules and your problem.
Its just your implementation that is inefficient (read bad implementation
choice). Take a look at systems like the Apollo Aegis that allows dynamic
binding (at run time) of libraries, regardless of the language used. Even
if your OS does'nt support dynamic binding a decent linker should only bring
in parts of modules that are actually referenced (for example look at
the TDI modula system).
-- 
usenet: .....!decvax!cwruecmp!bammi		jwahar r. bammi
csnet:       bammi@case
arpa:        bammi%case@csnet-relay
compuServe:  71515,155