In article <nhvlnvFmcs4U1@mid.individual.net>,I think the idea was enable more with less, due to the real limits
Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:On 9/28/26 10:49, Dan Cross wrote:Ok, I get that, but that's not describing efficiency. Rather,In article <nhlautF2k3mU1@mid.individual.net>,>
Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:>[snip]>
>
[*] This was a method, used during linking, in which you described an
overlay map, and the OS then mapped in and out various segments of your
application at runtime as various parts of it were called by the rest
of the application.
>
The :-( is because I have direct personal experience of having to do
this multiple times... :-) Never, ever, ever, again. :-)
>
I was very glad to get to VAX and leave all that behind.
Never saw it as much of a problem. Actually helped a lot in making
more efficient programs.
Efficient in what regard?
The programmer had to learn a bit more about his program in order
to make the overlays work properly and it kinda force you to look
at things like program flow and structure more closely.
it is describing a programming process that forces engaging with
software on a deeper level, because otherwise, the program won't
run.
on hardware back in the day. Have used overlays on RT11 in the past,
and much later, 6 x 8k fixed lookup tables for an 8051 series
embedded project. A bit tortuous, but worked fine. Keil C for 8051
was great in that respect. A bit easier for the RT11 case, where an
8k data buffer was shared with temporarily unused code.
But yes, does make one think a lot more about design.
AnotherNo argument there. LLMs can be useful, but only if you already
facet of programming that has been lost in the age of Vibe Coding.
know what you're doing. If you don't, you're going to have a
bad time.
- Dan C.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.