mousepad future

[Brian J. Tarricone]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Erik Harrison wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Xavier Otazu <xotazu at cvc.uab.es> wrote:

>> In fact, nedit uses much less memory (5.5Mb) than mousepad (8.5Mb) and
>> is (and starts) as fast as it. Furthermore, nedit has much more
>> functionalities than mousepad (tabs, sintax highlight, macros, etc). The
>> only difference is that mousepad is more eye candy.
> 
> I don't know about eye candy unless you mean "uses Gtk". And yes, the
> fact that nedit uses less memory that Mousepad and has equally fast
> startup time has always irked me. That said, nedit is generally
> shipped as a statically linked binary, which shaves some startup time,
> and has been hand optimized for years. They've got the run up.

Yeah, gtk is probably the main offender here.  Motif doesn't require
much in the way of initialisation (IIRC, it's been a while since I've
done any Motif programming, and I've fortunately mostly blanked out
those parts of my memory), and Motif widgets are generally much lighter
than gtk widgets (no theming, for one thing; just color changes via X
resources).

As for being statically linked, on one hand you gain the performance
benefit of not having to load shared libraries (which in gtk's case
should already be loaded by the time you load mousepad), do relocations,
all that fun stuff, but you have a much larger binary to load into
memory.  Still, the static tradeoff is probably a little better,
especially with something like libXm which is relatively small.

	-brian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFt8WD6XyW6VEeAnsRAyODAKC+xbekz4Rz8heGcui3woh8vbxsvwCeP546
kAQX3b1v58bwxjDyOKO9Wio=
=xQrt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----