On 13.04.2010, at 13:54, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > 'decreasing the overhead of X11 on embedded devices' seem a popular > phrase. > In my experience, moving away from X11 primarily increases the > development overhead. An initial footprint decrease is accomplished, to > be soon eliminated once the developer gets all fonts right, and other > standard X11 functions have been duplicated. Still, the boot time > does not seem to differ that much between TinyX & other systems, like a > Qtopia etc. > > I was not able to get FLTK on DFB running yet. I put TinyX on the device. > So I'm not questioning your idea, but can you tell > some more about the effective savings? I'm pretty curious.
This is not my request. It seems, as you say, a common perceptions that X11 (be it TinyX or whatever) creates a big overhead in the connection between FLTK and the actual pixel on screen. I have no data whatsoever if this is true or not. I did however implement a very simple HAL for FLTK2 at some point to get a few user interface elements into a screen buffer attached to a regular PC that was otherwise not supported by the OS. Limiting myself to a single font face and a single font size, it was very fast and quite tiny. I can see a use for a control panel for a CNC machine where graphics requests are minimal. For anything more complex, it would be up to the user to decide. I assume that Nikita has some good references here?! - Matthias _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
