marc at kdab.com
Thu Jun 6 11:03:42 CEST 2019
On 2019-06-06 10:17, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
>> As a library implementer, you are simply not _allowed_ the freedom to
>> use a convenient tool over the most efficient one. That is, to put it
>> mildly, a disservice to users and a disgrace to the profession of
> Well, optimization is probably good, but not always, I would say. If
> your app takes 0.001% less memory and works 0.001% faster then before
> some certain configurations... Well, it's probably worthless, unless
> you've improved google search engine or something like that.
Nice try: The change in question reduced the text size of QtWayland by
_0.6%_, not 0.001%. Off by almost three orders of magnitude, sorry. I
don't think it's a problem to make QtWayland 10% smaller by the applying
similar changes across it. In fact, I don't think it's a problem to make
all of Qt 10% smaller in the same way. It just takes longer.
It's simply wrong to say that executable size and speed don't matter. Qt
is targeting embedded devices, not just the desktop. You often have only
a limited amount of memory on these and Qt supports cutting features out
to make it smaller so it fits. If Qt contributors were not so
laissez-faire with their coding habits, users could use more features on
any given hardware. Even if all of Qt fits, this change makes two pages
more RAM available for the OS to do it's thing (cache I/O, e.g.).
As a library programmer, you have to empower your users to make their
products work. You are _not_ at a liberty to force them to jump through
hoops because you were too lazy to use the correct data structure, just
because it would involve an STL algorithm call. If you don't want to be
a library programmer, go write apps.
More information about the Development