Re: is glib too bloated?

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:05 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 12:33 -0500, Brandon Casey wrote:
> > 
> > I am posting to suggest that glib has crossed a threshold
> > of size and functionality and that users would benefit from
> > a splitting of the library into two or more separate libraries.
> 
> For the record, I dont think glib is oversized or bloated at
> all, I dont think its size is even a concern worth considering
> even in embedded world, that being said...

for my experience, you're right: even GTK+ is not "bloated" in that
respect. I've seen my share of compressed filesystem images containing
the whole stack from X up to GStreamer in ~16MB, so everything could be
said about GLib but it being "bloated".

> It might be advantagous if alot of the glib data structures
> were moved somewhere above libgobject in the stack (glibutils ?),
> this way they could have the option of being gobject based,

and how could gobject use those data structures if they are placed above
gobject? they would become part of gobject - and *that* would "bloat"
GLib (obviously, "bloat" is 

the whole point of having a separate gobject library is to avoid the
runtime type system if you just want to data types.

having said that, the only thing that I would like having is a (G)type
safe container abstract class - but that can be built upon
GList/GSequence and the GType API in less than 100 lines of code
probably.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
Emmanuele Bassi,  E: ebassi gmail com
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.net
B: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net