You can't beat DFL (D Forms Library) on that matter. No overhead. And it looks great.
retard Wrote: > Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:15:44 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > "retard" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > >> Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:44:07 +0100, grauzone wrote: > >> > >>> Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >>>> "Ph" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>> news:[email protected]... > >>>>> Why a generated file is so huge? > >>>>> "Empty" program such as: > >>>>> > >>>>> int main(char[][] args) > >>>>> { > >>>>> > >>>>> return 0; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> compiled with dmd2 into file with size of 266268 bytes. Even after > >>>>> UPX, it's size is 87552 bytes. Size of this code,compiled with > >>>>> VS(yes,yes, C++), is 6 656 bytes. Compiler add's standard library > >>>>> to file, am i right? Is there some optimization which delete unused > >>>>> code from file? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> That's not even a third of a megabyte, why does this keep getting > >>>> brought up as an issue by so many people? > >>> > >>> Maybe most of them don't know that it's only constant overheads. > >> > >> Are you sure it's a constant overhead? I've written few thousands of > >> lines in D and it always seems that if you port the same code to C++, > >> Java or C#, not only is the constant overhead larger, the binaries seem > >> to grow quite fast. > >> > >> E.g. if I link against some GUI lib, the hello world window+label grows > >> to 2..5 MB. In Java the same app using Swing is still only a few > >> kilobytes (label + window + procedure to close the app is 1.2 kB to be > >> precise). Note that the Java app provides even better runtime > >> reflection capabilities that D can. I would imagine a larger program > >> that uses network, sound, graphics, and some other domain specific > >> libraries would need a 50..100 MB binary .exe file when done in D. > > > > I'd rather use an app that did a bunch of compile-time reflection than > > one that did a bunch of run-time reflection. And I think that 50..100 MB > > figure seems quite exaggerated unless you're packing all those art+sound > > assets into the exe itself (or if you're using that one GUI lib that's > > been known to result in really inflated exe's, forget which one that > > was...). > > I've tried both - GTK+ bindings and the SWT port by frank benoit. Both > are HUEG
