Subject: Re: std C++ [was: [Patch] Psiconv TextEd and Word importer]
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 11:03:06 CST
Thomas Fletcher wrote:
> Great idea ... but what do we really gain?
A guess would be 200-500KB binary size and *no* RAM (virtual memory) usage
unless these specific features are used (like BIG5 if I'm not completely
mistaken) that would gain 99% percent of our user I think.
[...]
> Gains ... losses ... tough to measure
True, without any real-world evidence I can't make a point. Perhaps I should
create some empirical data? OK, I'll make a test-implementation of this, but
it won't be until 2001, I'm off a week from tomorrow... ;-)
I was thinking of a really simple thingie: only touch the (read-only) data
once we need it, and then decompress it in one sweep. RAM usage would *then*
become what it is now, but it would never be what it is today for most users
(since ost users don't use these charsets). I might be wrong though, perhaps
it's better to just run the executable through e.g. UPX (but then no
embedded platform would ever benefit from my proposed stuff)..
> but I think that there are still some other things that we
> should probably look at before going this route.
Oh yes, we have many pieces to look at. I think there are many (not just
"some") things we have to fix before we even think 0.7.14. We have (from my
POV) equally many things to check into before 0.7.13.
[my sig:]
> > Yes, I am a bastard, but I do deliver... What do you do...
>
> Glad to see you stepping up to the plate buddy =;-)
After your two orders of magnitude vector patch I fail to see what I can do
now. It would probably be a major interface overhaul, and even that "the
public" would see as mediocre. :-)
/Mike - please don't cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 11:01:16 CST