Re: ActiveTcl 8.5 size ?
- From: Aric Bills <aric.b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:19:38 -0700
For folks that prefer to distribute their applications as "wrapped" applications (e.g. Starpacks or Freewrap), size does matter.
It's probably more accurate to say that "size may be a consideration" for wrapped apps. But in practical terms, it's probably not a significant consideration for most people. Consider the sizes of the Windows UPX Tclkits for 8.4.9 (932 kb) and 8.5a2 (1010 kb)--a difference of 78 kb. If you're distributing your software on a floppy disk, 78 kb might make a difference, but over the Internet and certainly on a CD, 78 kb is negligible. In instances where it does matter, you still have the option of writing your apps for the earlier, smaller version of Tcl.
I always assumed that is why many extensions have remained as Tcl/Tk packages that can be loaded if needed without bloating the core?
Well, some other practical factors also come into play :) Like the fact that it's much easier to throw together and distribute an extension than it is to write style-guide-compliant code that has to work properly on a number of different platforms, and go through the TIP process. Or licensing issues, such as when a package wraps a GPL'ed C library and therefore can't go into the core. Or the fact that some extensions are too specific to a limited domain to justify their presence in the core. I imagine that the core could get quite a bit bigger if the need arose and especially if the community would contribute the code.
.
- References:
- ActiveTcl 8.5 size ?
- From: Bugs
- ActiveTcl 8.5 size ?
- Prev by Date: Re: ActiveTcl 8.5 size ?
- Next by Date: Can't process fileevents until comand exits
- Previous by thread: Re: ActiveTcl 8.5 size ?
- Next by thread: Aqua Tclkit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
