Re: [gtkmm] gtkmm is really big

["Seth Moore" <seth beere org>]

That's all true, but we're constrained more heavily by code size than by
memory.  It was my mistake for not qualifying more heavily, but that 32 MB I
meantioned earlier is for ROM, not RAM.

We've decided to stick with the native gtk+ C interface.  Being a C++ bigot,
I'd prefer to use a gtkmm, but it should be no problem to use plain old gtk+.
 We're able to take the ~300k hit on the stdc++ libraries and such, but not
the extra ~2MB that gtkmm adds on top of that.

Thanks everyone here for your input.

-Seth

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Arvind R." <arvind acarlab com>
To: gtkmm-list gnome org
Sent: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:42:09 +0530
Subject: [gtkmm] gtkmm is really big

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:36:47 -0500, Seth Moore wrote
> > ....
> > hello_gtk    -  2841K
> > hello_gtkmm  -  5232K
> 
> to which Billy O'Connor replied :
> > I'm surprised it's that *small*.
> > ...
> 
> And Eric Newman formulated a comparison procedure:
> 
> My question:
> 
> Does it really matter?
> Haven't the PMMU guys and the page-fault handler guys made
> it such that only needed parts are loaded? I don't think
> that C++ ( and gtkmm in consequence ) adds too much to
> executing code - of course, the class trees don't know
> about user-app's usage profile and hence a lot of dead-code
> ( WRT the user app ) might be carried. And a generic GUI
> ( gtkmm ) necessarily has large class trees.
> 
> The penalties are only with disk-storage and up/downloading
> 
> - arvind
> _______________________________________________
> gtkmm-list mailing list
> gtkmm-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
------- End of Original Message -------