nanogui: Thread: State of the nanogui union?

----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Alex Holden ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.####
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?


> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:28:23 +0100 (GMT) you wrote:
> >On 28 Sep 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> >> I've been working on a widget set, and I'd be happy to share it with
> >> people here. It's based on code I got from Alexander Pleuchert, but not
> >> much of his original code is left at this time, though :-)
> >
> >Excellent. What features does it support? How large is it?
>
> It's a bit primitive right now. It has sliders (horisontal, vertical, or
> both at the same time, settable with a flag :), buttons, radiobuttons,
> toggle buttons, and a primitive text field. It's very object oriented,
> via some C macro hackery.

Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question.  :-)

How about C++ instead of macro hackery?

Brad ducks.  :-)

Regards,
Brad

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:56:39 +0100 (GMT) you wrote:
>/pub/nanogui/name_of_widget_set would probably be best. What are you 
>calling the widget set? 

I've just called it NanoWidgets for now... If you have a better suggestion
let me know :)

Do you have an incoming directory I can upload it to?

Regards,
Vidar

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote:
>Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question.  :-) 
> 
>How about C++ instead of macro hackery? 

I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our
box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it
anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might consume
almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away 
with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.

Besides, all the macro hackery is in one 99 lines long header file...
The rest is a lot cleaner thanks to the macro ugliness. I'm sure it
can be done even cleaner too, if more time is spent on it.

It's a very simple system with classes with only virtual methods, and
objects which contains a pointer to the appropriate class structure as
it's first member.
 
>Brad ducks.  :-) 

/me whips out his bazooka and blows Brad's head off... :-)

Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical stuff.

Regards,
Vidar

On 29 Sep 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> I've just called it NanoWidgets for now... If you have a better suggestion
> let me know :)

I've just added a directory /pub/nanogui/NanoWidgets/ and sent Vidar his
account details...

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.####
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?


> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote:
> >Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question.  :-)
> >
> >How about C++ instead of macro hackery?
>
> I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our
> box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it
> anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might consume
> almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away
> with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.

So... strip the C++ library.  I'm not saying STL, I'm saying classes.


> Besides, all the macro hackery is in one 99 lines long header file...
> The rest is a lot cleaner thanks to the macro ugliness. I'm sure it
> can be done even cleaner too, if more time is spent on it.

OK, I should look at it.


> It's a very simple system with classes with only virtual methods, and
> objects which contains a pointer to the appropriate class structure as
> it's first member.
>
> >Brad ducks.  :-)
>
> /me whips out his bazooka and blows Brad's head off... :-)

You meanie!  :-)


> Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical
stuff.

Isn't that just a myth?


Regards,
Brad

> > almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away
> > with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.
> 
> So... strip the C++ library.  I'm not saying STL, I'm saying classes.

From experience C++ libraries get very large very fast. In paticular their
initial overhead is high. Also we have no open source 8086 16bit C++ compiler

> > Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical
> stuff.
> 
> Isn't that just a myth?

Unfortunately - no. At least not with small projects. With a big one it
can get lost in the noise.

Alan

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:37:05 -0400 you wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.#### 
>To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.#### 
>Cc: ####@####.#### 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:33 AM 
>Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union? 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote: 
>> >Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question.  :-) 
>> > 
>> >How about C++ instead of macro hackery? 
>> 
>> I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our 
>> box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it 
>> anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might consume 
>> almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away 
>> with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance. 
> 
>So... strip the C++ library.  I'm not saying STL, I'm saying classes. 

Doesn't help.... You'll still have the C library around, so going C++
means that you'll add yet another (quite big) library too, as opposed to
being able to get by with just a C library, maybe even with quite a bit
of functionality taken out.

Also, many embedded platforms and PDAs doesn't have a proper C++ library,
or even C++ compilers that can generate code suitable for them.

STL wasn't in my mind at all...

>> Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical 
>stuff. 
> 
>Isn't that just a myth? 

Not in my experience. I've several times rewritten C++ applications that
have been carefully optimized for performance in pure C and reduced them
to as littles as 20% of the original, with 50% being typical.

One important note here: This is of course C++ applications which
actually are C++, not just C compiled with a C++ compiler - if you don't
use classes or functions from the C++ library size shouldn't be an issue
any longer. But why use C++ then?

It's also with egcs - I don't know if the numbers would be equivalent
with other complers.

In most cases with C++ apps that aren't carefully optimized, the numbers
can be even more dramatic... Few C++ programmers seem to realize how to
use the string class efficiently, for instance - I've seen programs where
more than 50% of the time was spent concatenating and copying strings 
because they didn't realize how string expressions were compiled.

Regards,
Vidar

I guess I didn't duck low enough.  :-)

I hear you and Alan.

If only we could use C++... maybe it's just a dream... no... I can't believe
it... why would C++ be prohibitively costly... I can't see any good
reason... what's in that C++ library anyway... isn't C++ a language, not a
runtime... can't it just use the C runtime... can't it get by without it's
own library...

Thing is, I plan on having C++ and STL on my platform anyway, so the above
is kinda moot. But still the questions linger and beg answers.

Regards,
Brad

----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.####
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?


> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:37:05 -0400 you wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
> >To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
> >Cc: ####@####.####
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 8:33 AM
> >Subject: Re: State of the nanogui union?
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:15:41 -0400 you wrote:
> >> >Everyone one: please brace yourselves for this next question.  :-)
> >> >
> >> >How about C++ instead of macro hackery?
> >>
> >> I thought about it, but decided against it for since reasons. For our
> >> box it isn't that critical, since we'll have the C++ libraries on it
> >> anyways, but for PDA's etc., where including a C++ library might
consume
> >> almost all of the available memory, whereas with C you could get away
> >> with only a very stripped C library, C++ is a nuisance.
> >
> >So... strip the C++ library.  I'm not saying STL, I'm saying classes.
>
> Doesn't help.... You'll still have the C library around, so going C++
> means that you'll add yet another (quite big) library too, as opposed to
> being able to get by with just a C library, maybe even with quite a bit
> of functionality taken out.
>
> Also, many embedded platforms and PDAs doesn't have a proper C++ library,
> or even C++ compilers that can generate code suitable for them.
>
> STL wasn't in my mind at all...
>
> >> Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical
> >stuff.
> >
> >Isn't that just a myth?
>
> Not in my experience. I've several times rewritten C++ applications that
> have been carefully optimized for performance in pure C and reduced them
> to as littles as 20% of the original, with 50% being typical.
>
> One important note here: This is of course C++ applications which
> actually are C++, not just C compiled with a C++ compiler - if you don't
> use classes or functions from the C++ library size shouldn't be an issue
> any longer. But why use C++ then?
>
> It's also with egcs - I don't know if the numbers would be equivalent
> with other complers.
>
> In most cases with C++ apps that aren't carefully optimized, the numbers
> can be even more dramatic... Few C++ programmers seem to realize how to
> use the string class efficiently, for instance - I've seen programs where
> more than 50% of the time was spent concatenating and copying strings
> because they didn't realize how string expressions were compiled.
>
> Regards,
> Vidar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>

: >Brad ducks.  :-) 
: 
: /me whips out his bazooka and blows Brad's head off... :-)
: 
: Actually, I work quite a bit with C++, but just not for size critical stuff.


Brad - nice try, at least you asked... ;-)

Actually, I agree with Vidar on this, especially since bcc++ isn't out yet.

Greg

 Few C++ programmers seem to realize how to
: use the string class efficiently, for instance - I've seen programs where
: more than 50% of the time was spent concatenating and copying strings 
: because they didn't realize how string expressions were compiled.

	OK - I've got to jump in now, since this is one of my pet peeves.
I think that one of the biggest problems with most programmers is that
they don't know the code that's being produced from their source.  In most
instances, C++ just compounds the problem, exactly as stated above, by
programmers causing riduculous memory and cpu usage for just string
manipulation, for instance.