Hello Jarrett,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Rennie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Bill,
I think the build time of dwt apps is a much bigger issue right now
than the size of exes. The size of exes can be reduced using hacks
like upx, but there is no fix for the long build times as far as I
know.
--bb
Totally agree. The size is just an annoyance. But currently the
build times are pretty bad. Recently, I've been frustrating over
this especially while working on the Browser port. Everytime I want
to test a fix, I have to recompile... which takes ages. This seems
to be partly due to the dsss dependency (recent version is sloooow).
I've been thinking of adding some sort of shell script or "make"
file to see if this can be improved... at least for sanities' sake.
:-(
-JJR
Naturally, for some of us, .exe size is more important.
Specifically, for those of us building software that will be
downloaded by users at home.
But then again, I always build GUIs using native libraries--WTL on
Win32 and Objective-C on Mac--so I'm likely not a DWT customer
anyway.
I'm pretty sure DWT uses the underlying native GUI APIs. At least it
looked that way when I saw it demonstrated.
Yes, it does so on all platforms (GTK on Linux, win32/64 API on Windows,
Cocoa on Mac). That's the main principle behind SWT and the deciding factor
for us choosing to port it :). This is what differentiates it from other
Java frameworks like Swing. In D, the size appears to be a result of both
the SWT design (and shear size of the project) and the compiler/linker implementation.
-JJR
