Re: is glib too bloated?

[Hans Breuer <hans breuer org>]

On 24.04.2007 18:31, Jake Goulding wrote:
> Brandon Casey wrote:
>> It's hard for me to think of unicode as
>> being low-level when it adds so much overhead to string handling. 
> 
> Isn't (a part of) the unicode handling needed for correctly processing 
> paths under Windows? As I remember it, Windows-native calls take either 
> ASCII or a slightly modified UTF-16LE (aka UCS-2). In order to be able 
> to have code that needs to open "strangely" named files on any platform, 
> at least a modicum of unicode support is needed. 
Yes, MultiByteToWideChar() see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/intl/unicode_17si.asp

> Once you have that, 
> including gettext as a dependency seems straight-forward.
>
Not really, but having the iconv dependency was decided about six years
ago: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-May/msg00219.html

BTW: compared to the usual bandwidth and computer growth since that time
the GLib growth was quite moderate (factor ten vs. factor two)

Regards,
	Hans

-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it.                -- Dilbert