On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 01:45:54PM +0000, Carlos A M dos Santos wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, the fast fingers of Mark Hatch wrote:
>
> MH> The only GUI toolkit with a significantly lighter footprint was
> MH> fltk.
>
> FLTK was intended to be "light". It achieves that goal by trading size by
> functionality: no resource manager support, only one display, simple
> geometry management, limited I18N, etc. It also doesn'n use some C/C++
> features (macros, templates, multiple inheritance, or exceptions,
> according to the "about" page).
Not really a drawback if talking about portability ...
And especially if talking about a comparison to C-based toolkits.
> Looking the numbers in your message I guess the "Hello, world" programs
> were linked statically. This masquerades the fact that there is much more
> functionality in Xt than in FLTK. And FLTK is C++, leading to larger
> executable code. Look at this:
[...]
Well, true but not whole truth. The power of a library is not
proportional to the executable size ... If things ("features") would be
somehow independent you would have a chance for them to drop
out upon linking and not give a major penalty upon runtime.
--
Alexander Mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
