[<<] [<] Page 2 of 3 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:22:48 -0000 Message-Id: <003701bf0a74$593c6e80$b8119526@ltc.com> ----- 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: "Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:29:05 -0000 Message-Id: <19990929122418.26766.qmail@mail.relight.com> 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: "Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:38:44 -0000 Message-Id: <19990929123354.26825.qmail@mail.relight.com> 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: Alex Holden ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:38:46 -0000 Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9909291322170.387-100000@hyperspace> 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/ -------------------- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:44:02 -0000 Message-Id: <008d01bf0a77$5663cbb0$b8119526@ltc.com> ----- 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: Alan Cox ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:50:26 -0000 Message-Id: <E11WJ2y-00027F-00@the-village.bc.nu> > > 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: "Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 13:05:58 -0000 Message-Id: <19990929130112.26980.qmail@mail.relight.com> 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: State of the nanogui union?
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 13:30:08 -0000 Message-Id: <00fe01bf0a7d$c3403ce0$b8119526@ltc.com> 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: ####@####.#### > | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
RE: State of the nanogui union?
From: Greg Haerr ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 17:53:11 -0000 Message-Id: <01BF0A70.18FE7F10.greg@censoft.com> : >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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
RE: State of the nanogui union?
From: Greg Haerr ####@####.#### Date: 29 Sep 1999 18:06:15 -0000 Message-Id: <01BF0A71.E1BA5310.greg@censoft.com> 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 2 of 3 [>] [>>] |