3.89B1 creates bigger executeables !!!!!!

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:28 pm

3.89B1 creates bigger executeables than 3.81

Post by **Fred** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:49 pm

Probably due to the inline window resize procedure and a bit from the dynamic object managment. Try only with a different lib than the 'window' libs to be sure..

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:58 pm

Do you mean ResizeGadget() for example?
Mmmmhh... OK, if it's only that... Anyway, i'll test...

lets not be scared 8O

Post by **Fred** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:01 pm

No, the resize window handler is now changed to allow to use the #PB_Event_WindowResize constant in the main loop, without have to setup a callback. And this handler is a bit big (3 kb), but I think it worth it. So yes, the Window lib has grown of 3 kb.

ricardo · Post by **ricardo** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:45 pm

Fred wrote:No, the resize window handler is now changed to allow to use the #PB_Event_WindowResize constant in the main loop, without have to setup a callback. And this handler is a bit big (3 kb), but I think it worth it. So yes, the Window lib has grown of 3 kb.

Hi Fred!

Can't be into a separated lib the resize stuff?

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:51 pm

Can't be into a separated lib the resize stuff?

Even though its only 3k?

Post by **freak** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:26 pm

lol

The window lib has grown exactly 3584 bytes by this. What are 3584 bytes in a GUI application??
I think you guys really should stop being so fanatic about the sizes, and think a little more realistic.

Timo

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:54 pm

I think you guys really should stop being so fanatic about the sizes, and think a little more realistic.

...yeah, ok, but the danger begins here; i mean that could be added 4k more for Sprite lib, 2k more for requester lib ... and so on ...

dagcrack · Post by **dagcrack** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:08 pm

IMO I preffer smaller exes, better.

ricardo · Post by **ricardo** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:24 pm

freak wrote:lol

The window lib has grown exactly 3584 bytes by this. What are 3584 bytes in a GUI application??
I think you guys really should stop being so fanatic about the sizes, and think a little more realistic.

Timo

3 k on THIS lib, and tomorrow another 4 k in other... I just suggest that some libs could be splited to keep small size, don't see why is fanatism!

The principle to just compile what is needed is good i think!

techjunkie · Post by **techjunkie** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:42 pm

ricardo wrote:The principle to just compile what is needed is good i think!

I agree - the things you don't use shouldn't be included... Why should it?

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:59 am

I agree - the things you don't use shouldn't be included... Why should it?

I agree too, but i think we can let Fred get away with 3k this time!

Post by **Dare2** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:59 am

Fred is good, but he would have to be miraculous to improve PB without adding something, somewhere.

PB could produce much bigger exe sizes and still be small compared to most. Often the resources we use are bigger than the exe that uses them.

I vote more enhancements and improvements, even if it costs a whole extra 10KB!

* passes out the smelling salts *

Dreglor · Post by **Dreglor** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:49 am

i agree with dare here,
if it adds good things then who cares what it adds to the executes
size doesn't all matter to computers these days when it comes to bytes and kilobytes it not like everyone is on 486's with 5meg of harddrive space

ricardo · Post by **ricardo** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:54 am

Kale wrote:
I agree - the things you don't use shouldn't be included... Why should it?
I agree too, but i think we can let Fred get away with 3k this time!

Yes, we are only giving our humilde opinion

Fred finally decide!