Re: programming standards ?

["jonmac" <jonmac@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have lots of trouble with the 64K size limit. My systems have many stops
coded individually into each system, and then there are arrays etc I have
built with help from Bob Fulks, Gary Fritz and others.

One problem I have is that while the arrays and other functions I have made
help reduce the code size, when I implement the function that holds the
array with a system using lowest or highest function I get the message:
"Variables & Arrays cannot be passed to function Lowest".
Does anyone have any suggestion as to what I am doing wrong, or a possible
fix if this is a TS bug, please?

Also, when functions are made for code (even small code), is the 64K code
size of systems reduced by the use of these functions?

And in general, would it be reasonable to think that about 2x A4 pages of
code would be about the 64K limit? (This seems to be about the amount of
text, that produces my warning 'size' limit).

Thanks
Jon Macmichael



----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Eggleston" <mikee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <multitrak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 14 December, 2001 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: programming standards ?


> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, multitrak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I don't disagree with what you all have said. Makes one want to look
> > outside EL (via DLL) to code more complex ideas using less archaic
> > debugging tools.
> >
> > On a separate but related note, do custom variable or condition names
other
> > than Value1 or Condition1 add to the 64K code limit in TS4? The reason I
> > ask is that I've seen system vendors use the built-in variable names
when
> > large code segments were involved. Is it a method to reduce code below
the
> > 64K limit, or just programmer laziness?
> >
> > MT
> >
> > >One of the many things I'm finding lacking with Omega's programs from
> > >a system development viewpoint is the utter lack of any standard tools
to
> > >make all efforts easier; from the simpliest indicator to the most
> > >complicated function. The disregard for integration into standard
tools,
> > >or the redevelopement of the same functionality, such as indent, RCS,
> > >cflow, cperf, lint, and many others reduces what could be an extremely
> > >fine tool to the equivilent of a big rock. A big rock is a great weapon
> > >when your opponent has the same or less. When your opponent has a
> > >repeating rifle, and knows how to use that rifle, then your hopes are
> > >dashed on the same rock.
> >
>
> My guess from what I have seen within EL code is that all variables
> consume part of th 64KB allocated to EL code. I feel the valueX and
> conditionX are just more syntatic sugar.
>
> Mike
>