On 28/09/2012 09:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Like anything else, there are some good things, and not so good things.
>> The one that really tickles me is the author insisting that because
>> assemblies are loaded dynamically, and because CIL takes up less space
>> than machine code and is JIT-compiled, you can "drastically reduce the
>> working set of your application".
>
> I don't even understand what that means.

C# is compiled to CIL, which is then JIT-compiled to machine code. The 
author claims (and I am highly sceptical) that CIL is much smaller than 
machine code. The author also says that since only the parts of your 
code which actually /run/ get compiled to machine code, the running 
machine code is smaller, giving your application a smaller "working set".

This, it is claimed, can reduce page faults, improve cache performance, 
and so forth.

Yes, that's right. Your application is using 250MB of heap space, but 
the executable binary is 4KB smaller, and that's the important thing, right?

> I have seen several arguments in the past that C++ templates
> are bad because they increase code size, thus increasing memory usage.

> In other words, their solution to the "huge" "problem" of increased code
> size is to increase memory usage ten-fold in order to make the executable
> binary slightly smaller. Great job.

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

Post a reply to this message