Re: A proposal for Midnight Commander

[Koblinger Egmont <egmont uhulinux hu>]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Ali Akcaagac wrote:

> I saw what Miguel replied to you and usually I have the tendency to
> agree that re-using code is a nice thing. But Midnight Commander is not
> big enough that it would justify it to depend on glib. For GUI material
> e.g. a full Desktop Environment I would fullheartly agree anyday but not
> for a console application. What benefits do you have when you are able
> to shrink the size of Midnight Commander to around ~350kb but then on
> the otherhand need a full blown Glib2 library with ~500kb only to use
> the 5-6 functions required by Midnight Commander. I think that everybody
> is going to agree here.

No, not really :-)))

IMHO code reusage isn't for saving some kilobytes of disk space, it's
mainly for saving programmers' time and for having less bugs in the
software. I agree with you that it wouldn't take so much time to kill all
the glib stuff from mc _now_, but I even more agree with Miguel that a
more intensive usage of glib functions might make mc cleaner and more
bug-free, and IMHO this is the way to go.

I'm nearly always using a normal system. I use rescue and similar minimal
systems only several times a year. Yes, it'd nice to have mc there, but if
it isn't, then I can cope with cp, mv..., no problem. So it's IMHO not
worth to investigate too many work on making mc run on minimal systems.

Which glib to use is a harder question, Gabucino votes for glib1, while I
want to kill all the glib1 and gtk1 stuff from my system as soon as I can,
and I'd rather use a new, actively maintained (and changing, doh!) code
than an old, non maintained one.



-- 
Egmont