On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, John Weiss wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> > John Weiss blathered:
> >
> > > This is, as I understand it, the main problem with WxWin. The code is
> > > bloated: it's a library/GUI toolkit implemented *on* *top* *of* other
> > > toolkits, libraries, and GUI's. Nope, sorry, that's a kludge [if I'm
>
> > After all, what we are doing is exactly bloat: Instead of one
> > interface to one possibly strange interface, we are having N interfaces
> > to N possibly strange interfaces.
>
> Ah...but that's bloat in the *source*, not necessarily bloat in the
> execution time. I'm a firm believer in that up-and-coming philosophy
> of shifting as much "work" to compile-time as possible to streamline
> what a user executes. So, all of that extra source code, with inline
> functions and/or cpp-macros, etc., will make the code-base huge and
> extend compile time, but won't necessarily worsen execution speed.
[snipped remainder]
The codebase gets bigger but we effectively only compile the same amount
of stuff as we did before -- so compile times should be about the same.
In fact with the reduction in dependencies brought about by "independence"
developers should see a reduction in compile times. (Assuming of course
they aren't using gcc-2.7.2.x with debugging enabled -- but then that's a
developers-only joke)
Allan. (ARRae)
