Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-24 12:20:58

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:ap93ub$acj$
> > A size of 500 KB is non-negligible but given the multi-megabyte and 700K
> or
> > so modules you quote above, I think you are overreacting to size in and
> > itself. Look at the size of language vendor shared libraries nowadays.
> They
> > are easily 500K on my system ( W2K ) and often into the multi-megabyte
> area.
> > Distributions with rich functionality often run to 3,4,5 megabytes if
> > more. This too me is common.
> 500 KB is huge for a package that ONLY does regular expressions. Let's
> a look at libraries:
> wininet.dll: 570 KB (includes HTTP parser, FTP state machine, URL
> mshtml.dll: 2,695 KB (a lot of IE)
> msjet40.dll: 1,469 KB (database engine, includes SQL parser)
> mfc70.dll: 952 KB (the whole darling MFC compiled as a dll)
> msvcrt20.dll: 248 KB (The ENTIRE C standard library)
> I rest my case.

What is the difference between a regex package of 500K and a wininet package
of about 500K ? You act as if these things have statuses and if some package
doesn't meet your criteria of being important or wide-ranging enough, then
it is too big. If regular expressions are important enough to my modules,
then I will distribute a single shared library for them even if it is 500K
or more. Of course if I can get the functionality I need in a regex shared
library of 50K instead, and I find it as good and as easy to use for my own
needs, I will distribute that instead.

If you think there is code bloat because you have looked at the design and
found it wanting, then talk about that, offer improvements or suggestions,
write your own implementation which is much smaller and equally as rich in
the functionality which you feel is needed.

> > I think size as a matter of inelegant and/or irrelevant code and bad
> design
> > is important, but not size as a matter in and of itself.
> Of course. Without even looking, if my only option to use regex++ or greta
> for *any* regexp need (no matter how simple!) is to deal with a 500 KB
> gorilla, then...
> > > The current
> > > perception is that when it comes about string manipulation and I/O,
> is
> > > primitive and arcane.
> >
> > The current perception is wrong
> What's wrong about it? Show me ONE guy who says: "I'm a fan of iostreams!"

I'm a fan of iostreams !

> I/O in C++ sucks.

Nice intelligent comment.

> String manipulation in C++ is at the substr() and
> replace() level.

There is much more to std::basic_string<> than substr() and replace().

Because languages and libraries can be improved doesn't mean that what
already exists is lousy.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at