for critical sections and files). You'll see which is lightweight or
heavyweight. It's not binary code size issue, it's level of brain damage;
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
Indeed, I find the whole concept of "lightweight" vs. "heavyweight"
largely pointless. Who
cares? We have entirely too much cultural baggage from the era of the
PDP-11 which we
need to discard, and program size is high among pointless concerns nearly
all of the time.
Data size matters; program size is irrelevant. I have little patience
with anyone who
suddenly starts arguing about how programs in language x or technology y
are "smaller"
than some other technology. Even code speed is largely irrelevant 95% of
the time (but
oh, when it matters, it matters a LOT!), and program size is also
irrelevant in this case
because the tight loop is usually a few hundred lines of code at most.
Program size
doesn't matter, and code size doesn't matter, because neither have any
significant impact;
what matters is just the optimum execution path through that tight loop.
In fact, I know someone who essentially says "executable size is
irrelevant. The only
thing that matters is disk accesses for data", because in the problem
domain he works in,
computing is essentially free and disk access, several orders of magnitude
slower, is the
ONLY operational parameter they care about. Let's just say that in his
problem domain,
terabyte databases are considered rather small and quaint.
joe
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:27:35 -0700, "Ed Weir \(ComCast\)" <Anon@Maus.duh>
wrote:
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
news:860ra2hu43e4qmfq3jolr4kbdlg7sae75b@4ax.com...
| Actually, nobody would pay me for anything done in WTL; my clients want
MFC code. So I
| have no motivation to learn a technology that has no marketplace.
| joe
|
| On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:18:59 -0700, "Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]"
| <cpdaniel_remove_this_and_nospam@mvps.org.nospam> wrote:
|
| >"Tim Roberts" <timr@probo.com> wrote in message
| >news:236ea2pj47v3d00s719ihamm6o30egtqng@4ax.com...
| >>
| >> CFindFile is not MFC, it is WTL. Much lighter weight, and usable by
| >> itself. WTL should be in the toolbox of every Windows programmer.
| >
| >I stand corrected. WTL is indeed much lighter than MFC.
| >
| >Unfortunately, it's not in every windows programmers toolbox since it's
not
| >part of any Visual C++ product offering.
| >
| >-cd
| >
| Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
| email: newcomer@flounder.com
| Web: http://www.flounder.com
| MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
MFC is already loaded in the OS 99.9999999999999999999999 percent of the
time anyway; why worry about it's weight? Hung over from the embedded
days, perhaps? IMO, adding the weight of WTL is more of an impact than
just
using MFC which is already there.
Get a grip... (8^>
-- Ed.
-----------------------------------------------------
hex->bin->b64
F9E7707A2AF502D0A899C6ACB43A2D35EB7E
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@flounder.com
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm