Re: is glib too bloated?

Le mardi 24 avril 2007 à 12:51 -0500, Brandon Casey a écrit :
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 03:26 -0400, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> >> Hi Brandon,
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 17:44 -0500, Brandon Casey wrote:
> >>> My point is _not_ that these features are not useful, just
> >>> that glib would be a better library with a more strict focus and useful
> >>> to more developers if some of this functionality were moved to a
> >>> separate library.
> >>
> >> Don't forget that the more libraries you have, the longer the dynamic
> >> linker will work to resolve all the symbols, and consequently the longer
> >> it will take for each application to start.
> >
> > And each shared library consumes at least one page of private
> > per-process data memory.
> The concern is organizational rather than with absolute minimal memory
> consumption or program loading speed. The goal is to have as few separate
> libraries as necessary to organize the components according to function
> and ease library use.

There is already a problem with too many libraries, consuming too much
time on startup even on big desktop computers. Efforts to rationalize
the number of libraries are underway but apparently not so easy. Just
splitting glib for the sake of doing it isn't very wise IMO.


PS: could you avoid trimming the Cc: list ?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]