Re: Vuescan - new features

On 12 Dec 2005 15:14:36 GMT, Marjolein Katsma <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Don (phoney.email@xxxxxxxxx) wrote in
>news:rbfjp1l2nr9cvhcr031gr519r0g7q50cl3@xxxxxxx:
>
>> However, Photoshop, Windows et al are massively more *complex* than
>> Vuescan! (A hint: Check file sizes, for starters!)
>
>File size and complexity have little, if anything, to do with each
>other. "Complexity" is about both what functionality is there AND how
>that functionality is interrelated and interdependent; "file size" is
>the result of number of functions (which may be entirely independent or
>even redundant) and the efficiency of how that functionality is
>translated to machine code (which itself is dependant on programming
>language and compiler/assembler used). A small program cleverly written
>in assembly language can be far more complex than a much larger program
>written in a "higher" but far more inefficient language and compiled
>with a not-very-optimizing compiler (and what an optimizing compiler can
>do is again partially dependent on teh skill of the programmer).
>
>You *may* be able to use file size as a clue (but no more than that)
>given that two programs you are comparing are:
>1) written in the same programming language
>2) written by the same (team of) programmer(s)
>3) written in a time frame that does not make much difference to the
>experience of that (team of) programmer(s)
>4) using available libraries in the same way and to the same extent
>5) compiled with the same compiler/assembler with the same settings

Numbers 4 and 5 are the biggies when it comes to Windows programming
and DLLs. It takes a lot of work and knowledge to use only the
necessary DLLs and to do as much work as possible with the ones that
need to be included.

The DLLs alone can make as much as a 10:1 difference in size.
Using optimization and the best settings can make an even bigger
difference.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>(and I've probably forgotten to mention a few)
>
>File size by itself means nothing at all.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: C vs. C++
    ... language, you push it into the programs. ... because a given amount of complexity in one place may translate into vastly ... but the unnecessary complexity tied to the use of an obscure programming ... You can use any of the several libraries ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: the necessity of Lisps Objects?
    ... know the language, you still cannot ascertain how long your function ... different ways and have different orders of complexity. ... optimisation is going to be hit and miss. ... While I don't disagree with the premise that programming languages ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Vuescan - new features
    ... "Complexity" is about both what functionality is there AND how ... translated to machine code (which itself is dependant on programming ... language and compiler/assembler used). ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: C vs. C++
    ... If this is the case, the complexity leading to the failure is in the /project/, ... If you banish it from the programming ... language, you push it into the programs. ... codebase that is based on templates, if templates were taken away, and how does ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Characterizing complexity
    ... > The real problem with Kolmogorov is that complexity is defined as the ... > complete language is a serious limitation. ... be compared - since programming languages are far too arbitrary. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)