Re: R4GL V C4GL

In article <33jh1i$n93$2@heifetz.msen.com> jsturm@garnet.msen.com (Jeffrey Sturm) writes: >*.4gi's are *much* smaller than *.4ge's and system memory usage >is sometimes reduced because typically many fglgo processes run at once >and Unix can share the .text segments. In contrast, C4GL compiles the >runtime (equivalent of fglgo) into every .4ge produced, wasting >disk and VM. Except that with a demand paged Unix a 4ge will typically (ie average case) use less real memory than fglgo, since fglgo reads the whole 4gi pcode program before running. ie the 4ge starts off with a minimally small active page set, while the fglgo starts off with a maximally large set. Of course in the worst case the 4ge can end up using much more memory, but this is not so common in practise. >The biggest drawback of R4GL I've witnessed is slow program load times >because of runtime binding. I've always wondered if Informix would ever >implement a *real* linker/librarian (like ld/ar) for RDS instead of just >/bin/cat ... Yep. We certainly make extensive use of both archive and dynamic shared libraries, so RDS is of limited use to us. Which is a shame, really. -- Hugh Grierson hugh@fujitsu.co.nz 17C, occasional showers