Let's make a few convenient assumptions: * The C/C++ compiler will generate lots of function calls. * The called routines will be loaded from one or more libraries. * Many calls will be used in almost any Perl program, but many others (including some fairly large routines) will not. * By analysis and tweaking, it should be possible to tease apart many of the routines' cross-linkages, such that routines don't get linked in unless they are actually being used. * Many Perl programs do not use the kinds of constructs that are run-time "wild cards" (i.e., that could bring in any routine). Given these assumptions, it does not seem unreasonable that binary versions of Perl programs could run (and ship, if linked statically) in substantially less space that "brute-force linked" programs would. Whether this would have benefits that would make it worthwhile is another question. The resources saved (e.g., disk and RAM space, Internet bandwidth, loading time) are all pretty cheap. But, given that the "analysis and tweaking" can be done by any interested party and submitted back to the source tree, it _could_ happen... -r Rich Morin, Canta Forda Computer Laboratory | Prime Time Freeware - quality UNIX consulting, training, and writing | freeware at affordable prices P.O. Box 1488, Pacifica, CA, 94044, USA | www.ptf.com info@ptf.com rdm@cfcl.com +1 650-873-7841 | +1 408-433-9662 -0727 (Fax) ***** Want to unsubscribe from this list? ***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch