On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, the fast fingers of Alexander Mai wrote:
AM> > FLTK was intended to be "light". It achieves that goal by trading size by
AM> > functionality [...]
AM>
AM> Not really a drawback if talking about portability ... And
AM> especially if talking about a comparison to C-based toolkits.
Sure, I was saying that FLTK pays a price for being "light".
AM> > Looking the numbers in your message I guess the "Hello, world" programs
AM> > were linked statically. This masquerades the fact that there is much more
AM> > functionality in Xt than in FLTK. And FLTK is C++, leading to larger
AM> > executable code. Look at this:
AM> [...]
AM>
AM> Well, true but not whole truth. The power of a library is not
AM> proportional to the executable size ... If things ("features")
AM> would be somehow independent you would have a chance for them to
AM> drop out upon linking and not give a major penalty upon runtime.
Ys, I agree. There are features in Xt that simple applications may not
need and therefore could be made optional by means of additional
libraries/modules. If dynamic loading was available in all platforms 15
years ago, perhaps it could be used in Xt [humm, a "microkernel GUI
toolkit", what a nice idea! :-)]. Unfortunately, it's too late to change
that now.
--
Carlos A. M. dos Santos
Federal University of Pelotas Meteorological Research Center
Av. Ildefonso Simoes Lopes 2791 Pelotas, RS, Brasil, CEP 96060-290
WWW: http://www.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br RENPAC (X.25): 153231641
Phone: +55 53 277-6767 FAX: +55 53 277-6722
