From: "Geo" 

Actually, it does mean larger because you can't have all tiny pieces. In
other words a dll has to have a bunch of related functions and you have to
include the whole dll even if you just want one of those functions. There
is a bunch of bloat in that kind of method but I don't see any easy way
around it where you could have reusable chunks of code, if you try to avoid
that the result is basically the same thing as a high level language.

Although.. I suppose a compiler could be smart and simply remove the unused
functions.

Geo.

"Tony Ingenoso"  wrote in message
news:427d204c{at}w3.nls.net...
> Large doesn't have to mean slow or needing vast memory.  This is where
> design and architecture come into play as opposed to throwing a bunch of
> random code into a sack and shaking it up.  Attention to data locality and
> working set are critical.
>
> OOP isn't even necessarily the problem - its sloppy/careless use of it by
> amateurs that's the problem.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5