Re: [Evolution-hackers] ... and how camel should be
- From: Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>
- To: Lee Revell <rlrevell joe-job com>
- Cc: evolution-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] ... and how camel should be
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:30:22 +0100
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 21:15 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:03 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > Do you think that's a problem?
>
> For evolution, it might be a lesser problem than for camel. I'd like to
> start using camel on mobile devices.
Let me illustrate this specific case . . .
Imagine .. a mobile device as 50 MB ram (that's a lot for some devices).
Now your library has a function like this:
GPtrArray *give_ids (void);
It will return pointers to 7MB of strings like this:
"0", "1", "2", ... "10000"
Wouldn't it be better if I could simply do this then?
gint give_length (void);
for (int a=0; a < give_length(); a++)
{
/* or whatever fast implementation */
gchar *id = g_strdup_printf ("%d", a);
/* my stuff */
g_free (id);
}
No? Because, that would safe me a 7 MB allocation on a device that has
50 MB of ram it REALLY wants to use for other purposes (believe me, if
on such a device you don't have to waste it like that, you DON'T waste
it like that).
Now .. I payed money for the memory in my desktop. Imagine EVERY
application wasting 7MB of memory. At this moment I have 24 applications
running. If they would all start doing things like that only ONCE, it
would waste +- 168 MB of ram. That's +- 15 euros.
Now lets take a look at the "One Laptop Per Child" project.
We can save some euros by fixing this flaw. We can make it possible to
give poor children a very good E-mail client that uses camel.
Is it still not worth fixing?
I "strongly" disagree.
--
Philip Van Hoof, software developer at x-tend
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: vanhoof at x-tend dot be
http://www.pvanhoof.be - http://www.x-tend.be
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]