From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-26 11:09:14
Eugene Lazutkin said:
>> Just for the sake of argument, let's say that I could implement my own
>> regex-like needs in 25K instead of the 'bloated' 50K from regex++ ...
>> are you really saying that the extra (let's be pessimistic and round
>> it up) 10 seconds will stop a users from downloading an app?
> Hand-made code was about 1k --- we didn't require full-blown regexp on
> dynamic patterns. Anyway, I am really saying that space considerations
> are still valid in age of Internet. In our case it was not a function of
> money ("1G of HDD now costs N times less that in 1962!"), it was
> function of user's patience. Please see below.
This is the crux of the matter. If you'd required full regexp
functionality, I doubt you could have hand coded it down much below the
50K reported. You have very specific size constraints that the vast
majority of people will not, and had to eliminate using a RegExp engine in
your implementation. In your case, an alternative such as Spirit probably
would have been more appropriate.
But I don't see your argument as having any relevance to the discussion of
whether or not Boost.RegExp or GRETA are overly bloated. Unless you can
prove that such functionality can be provided in less than the reported
50K, the only thing we have evidence of is that full RegExp engines are
not a universal solution for parsing... which everyone should know
-- William E. Kempf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk