Tony Peden wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 11:40, David Megginson wrote: > > Tony Peden writes: > > > > > > I don't know how many interdependencies there are, but the js related > > > > source and headers total 142k. > > > > > > Check that, 212k. > > > > That's pretty close. I wonder how bad the dependencies are. > > OK, I've gotten the compressed and uncompressed numbers confused. The > two numbers I quoted above are uncompressed. The original 360k posted > was for the whole library and was compressed. > > I've isolated all the headers and source required to get the js > interpreter to compile and link. The resulting executable works, > but all it does is instantiate the interpreter then delete it. At any > rate, I ended up with 388k of uncompressed source. This compresses to > 56k with tar and gzip.
That sounds OK for inclusion for me. > Note that du gives 17M for the FG source tree and 4.9M for the Simgear > source tree after running 'make distclean' on both. Both numbers are, > obviously, uncompressed. Compared to what size w/o JavaScript? > One more thing I should point out, the author's caveat list: > > I haven't any idea how much of a loss these represent. I will say, > however, that the author seems to *really* like namespaces... I dunno how much we have to / want to integrate the JS into FGFS. If it's sort of independat, just with the additional functions to use the property tree we don't need to care too much about its problems (whichever it has, apart from bugs/core dumps/...) Oh, and the namespaces don't hurt us... ;) What I don't know is how portable it is. I.e. on which compilers it does compile and work. (I have no reason to be suspicious, but it's a question that has to be asked) CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible. -- Ashley Montague _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
