BD> Hmm...perhaps...then you look at other examples...there's always the 
BD> guythat optimizes until he's blue in the face, compiles, and it's the
BD> same size or larger than the "loose" code.  :(
BD> I usually don't write Windows programs.  I have one that I wrote
BD> that reboots Windows 95 through the API (yeah, I know, pretty
BD> unoriginal but it works), and no matter what I took out or left
BD> in the uses clause it was still the same size.
BD> My point being that perhaps sometimes it's better to devote time to
BD> developing the substance of a program than endlessly searching for 
BD> theone-byte wonder.  Obviously you don't want to be irresponsible 
BD> aboutthe code you put out and leave it grossly unoptimized, though.  
BD> That'snot nice either.  I think there's a happy balance.
I agree...the thread started because of comments about Delphi stuff being 
large. Again, I was pointing out that there are other ways of doing things in 
delphi. I personally am not going to worry about about the size of the exe 
once it has been trimmed down with normal measures. Anyone worried about a 
200K windows program should look at the MicroSoft, Lotus or other 
WordProcessors, spreadsheets, etc. 
BD> With my DOS programs, I'd compile it without debug information and 
BD> thenrun an executable compressor (usually lzexe) on it.  That would 
BD> notslow it down too much.  I don't know of anything comparable for
BD> Windows platforms, though...
These programs just save a bit of diskspace, they don't save any on memory.  
Steve
--- FreeMail 1.07b
(1:203/21)
---------------