[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I notice that all programs compiled with Revolutions (even the simple "hello > world" sample) are on the heavy side (at least 1.8 megs,) even after you > minimize usage of the optional libraries. > > Is it because Revolution packs the runtime libraries along with every compiled > project like Visual Basic does?
Precisely, but with two advantages over VB: - Rev has a much smaller runtime footprint. - It's self-contained: no DLLs strewn all over the hard drive conflicting with other versions. > I prefer Revolution to VB or C++ because it appears to be much easier to learn > and use (not to mention it's cross platform feature), however, I am envious of > the compactness of C++. > > Why is C++ so small as compared to Revolution? A multi-platform framework as complete as what Rev delivers will not be radically smaller than Rev. To facillitate platform-independence any good frame work will have at least two layers: the platform-independent API you write to, which in turn uses OS-specific calls to execute your code on a given machine. The Rev engine is written in C++, and if you look at it as a precompiled library its actually rather compact for what it does, from flexible fast text processing to QuickTime playback. The biggest difference is that with C++ you're generally only compiling the parts you need. With isolated demo examples like "Hello World" the difference can be quite substantial as you've noted, but once you start building professional-level apps the size of your app is not out of line with modern norms: - GraphicConverter 4.4 MB - Apple's DVD Player 7.7 MB - Address Book 2.1 MB - Apple's Calculator 1 MB - iCal 26.4 MB - iSynch 10.2 MB - Interarchy 4.1 MB - Photoshop 53 MB My Rev-based WebMerge product does a lot of heavy text processing and FTP in an attractive UI for just 2.1 MBs, less than one-fourth the size of Apple's Cocoa-based iSynch utility. > Another program that is cross-platform like Revolution, but extremely compact > is Rebol. (http://www.rebol.com) The avg prog size for rebol is only about 5k > (as opposed to 1800K for Revolution.) How did they manage to make Rebol so > compact? 5k is so unusually small that I'm not sure how much could be accomplished with that. Not that Rebol isn't a flexible, robust system, as many seem very enthused by its capabilities. I'm just not certain a 5k runtime is what drives it; my hunch is that, like C++, the more capabilities your app has the larger the libraries needed to support it. > Other than reducing the associated libraries, avoiding media files (graphics, > audio, video, etc.,) what tricks and tips can be used to make Revolution > produce leaner and trimer executables? There's a feature request to consider breaking the engine into chunks to allow smaller executables, but that's a non-trivial task and I've yet to hear a commitment to such a plan. In the meantime, most of the apps worth shipping will likely have enough features to warrant the engine overhead. Stack files themselves are very small, so once you get past the engine size your app can be loaded with features with relatively little additional overhead. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge 2.2: Publish any database on any site ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
