Re: FLTK and Ada?

[David Holm <dholm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]

He mentioned that he liked fltk because his applications were very small when linked statically.
You just seemed to promote GtkAda a bit too much without knowing exactly what it was he was
working on. The only real information he gave us was that he liked the size of the binaries
created by fltk, this might mean he was looking into a good solution for small footprint
applications.

I just wanted you to realise that GtkAda is not the solution to famine, the solution
varies with the problem at hand of which we knew practically nothing from his mail. What we did
however know was that he had already investigated the use of GtkAda and QT and they did not seem
to suit his needs.

So far I believe noone has answered his questions which are regarding the difficulties of using
fltk with Ada.

//David Holm

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:18:14 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > Then why are you promoting GtkAda when you should be promoting Xlib?
> 
> It was you that drag in the debate of embedded systems. Not me neither
> the OP. The OP has not answered my question why GtkAda wasn't right.
> That some toolkit can make a executable a bit smaller (20kb is probably
> only a hello world app and nothing real)[*] is irrelevant in the majority
> of circumstances. But if the need is for embedded then by all means make
> a binding for that.
> 
> 
> [*] # The "core" (the "hello" program compiled & linked with a static
> FLTK library using gcc on a 486 and then stripped) is 110K. ref:
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/links/LK9171411600.html
> 
> -- 
> «I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
>  So who am I to judge.»
>                  - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]