Re: One large or two smaller executables?

Path: emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!briand From: briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass) Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix Keywords: binaries, executables Message-ID: <1992Mar1.011939.17799@anasaz> Date: 1 Mar 92 01:19:39 GMT References: <1992Feb28.185018.854@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, Az In article <1992Feb28.185018.854@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mtrotter@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark L Trotter) writes: >I am writing a fairly large application in compiled 4gl. The question is >should I write all of the application (reports,screens,processing) as one >compliled executable (now about 700kb) or break it up into several smaller >(<500kb) executables and RUN (spawn) them from within the main module? >In other words, what is better on system resources, one 900 kb >executable or two 500 executables? >I am running HPUX on a HP9000/832. >Thanks for any help. >Mark Trotter (trotter.1@osu.edu) Think more terms of how each of these components are going to be used. Do reports ever need to be called directly from the command line? Might processing routines be run by cron? Will the user be constantly going back and forth from a screen, to running a report and back again? How many MIPS do you have to spare? System resources are just one component of the equation. -- Brian Douglass briand%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu 602-870-3330 X657