From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2001-11-01T16:07:58+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24057] Re: I want a *really* small Ruby interpreter

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul Prescod <paulp@ActiveState.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:24053] Re: I want a *really* small Ruby interpreter


> "Hal E. Fulton" wrote:
> > Sounds a lot like the HP200LX palmtop to me. Mine is six years
> > old, but I still use it (haven't joined the Palm generation just yet).
> > 
> > It's a DOS 6.0 platform. I think it can handle larger programs,
> > but naturally you want to conserve space. Mine is limited to
> > 10 megs.
> 
> 10 megs is miles different than the"tiny" memory model:
> 
> Table 7-1 Choosing a real mode memory model 
> If code is... and data is... Use this model...
> under 64KB under 64KB Small (-ms) or Tiny (-mt) 
> over 64KB under 64KB Medium (-mm) 
> under 64KB over 64KB Compact (-mc) 
> over 64KB over 64KB Large (-ml) 
> 
> You can fit 156 64KB interpreters in 10MB.

Right, I failed to make myself clear. 10 MB is 
used for primary and secondary storage. The
"real" RAM is only 640K of that...

And according to your figures, large model
apps will certainly fit in there also... but still,
people do want to conserve space. You may
want to use some of that for TSRs or whatever.

But this is all irrelevant and OT, since I don't
even know what the other poster had in mind.

Thanks,
Hal