[Development] Views

Mutz, Marc 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
>> programmers.
> 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 
> in
> 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.

Thanks,
Marc


More information about the Development mailing list