Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

using this IDE design for an Electronic CAD

<< < (3/5) > >>

epsilon_da:
I am not perfect too.  :D

This kind of project help people to lern more, know other people and of course, make something good for everybody of it.


--- Quote from: myself ---I am still testing SciTE, but i am really surprised about how quick it opens and the bunch of functionalities, i am looking right now plugins to show me more versatility. Also i am surprised about GTK, it seems like it is not more so terribly ugly on windows, and with SciTE it only is 800 kb, really nice.

--- End quote ---

Reading further i see that it is not in gtk on windows. SciTE uses WindowsApi on windows and gtk on linux, like wxWindows, but it only wraps what is extrictly needed.
So, GTK still being ugly on windows  :(
Also SciTE by it self is not what i was looking for in this forum at first, but Scintilla has captivated my attention, becouse one part of the project is to make the Schematic control and i was planning to do it in wxWindows, but maybe i could do it just like Scintila.

But on the other hand, wrap a wraper like wxWindows doesnt make any sense, doesnt it?
I could write a normal wxSchematics which inherits of wxWindow and make or distribute wxWindow ports to WindowsAPI or GTK. Which is mainly what Scintila does.

I dont know if exists some way to strip wxMSW or wxGTK to have only the needed classes.

Cheers

thomas:

--- Quote from: epsilon_da on September 18, 2007, 01:16:12 am ---Memory load on windows:
Boa Constructor (wxPython)  = 38 Mb
Codeblocks Nightly Builds = 35 Mb
Codeblocks Nightly Builds --safe-mode = 27 Mb
Codeblocks 1.0 rc2 = 18 Mb
Codeblocks 1.0 rc1 = 13 Mb
--- End quote ---
Sorry if I'm missing your point, but... apart from the fact that memory consumption in Code::Blocks may vary +/- 500% depending on what plugins you enable, what are we talking about? On my system, Windows takes up over 130 MB of memory (Explorer alone eats 47 MB).
If I open a moderately sized project in Code::Blocks with CC enabled, it may take up to 90-100 MB, and gcc uses 290-300 MB to compile certain sources.
You see, if you seriously think about development, a dozen megabytes more or less must not be a problem, you need hundreds of megabytes for anything non-trivial. Especially compilers eat RAM like candy.
If your system has less than 500 or so megabytes free in "idle mode", you should consider buying RAM. You should not have to worry about 18 versus 35 MB if you plan to do anything serious.


--- Quote ---It seems like is better an much easier to program in python for large projects.
--- End quote ---
At the risk of starting a flame war... I don't consider Python a serious programming language, especially not for large projects. Opinions may differ of course, but that's what I think. The same goes for Java or C#, for that matter.
But don't listen to me... in the end, you have to use what you feel comfortable with, not what someone else tells you :)

epsilon_da:
Are you using Vista ????

With that Memory load i will never ever touch it.

Windows XP recently installed with just drivers and unnecesary services turned off. Is about 80Mb
At this time with tons of open programs. Explorer is 16 Mb with no opened pages, firefox 56 Mb with 3 tabs (sometimes grows to 120+).

I like python, it is very much like C, but if Boa with all its functionalities is just 38 Mb and CodeBlocks is 35 this should mean something about python vs C. Which is not really a fair coparison.
Programs in python are just compressed ascii and the python interpreter (about 250 kb) plus some libs like wxWindows.

stahta01:
An interpreter and compiler are two different things, comparing the memory uses are not valid.

But, GCC is designed for many target CPUs so is not the best when it comes to producing x86 code.

Compilers tend to use as much memory as they can to speed up compiling; interpreters tend to be design for different goals than Compilers.

JIT (Just In Time) Compilers are in the middle of normal compilers and interpreters as to design goals.

Just for the record, I consider Python and Perl great for what the original design purpose was; which was to process text files and produce output based on the input text file.

Tim S

thomas:

--- Quote from: epsilon_da on September 19, 2007, 04:10:14 pm ---Are you using Vista ????
With that Memory load i will never ever touch it.
--- End quote ---
Hahaha, no :) Vista doesn't run with that little memory. Assume at least twice as much for Vista.

Those are figures from my XP system, instrumented display driver, 2 extra drivers for 6DOF HIDs, Tortoise, and 2-3 services beyond the bare minumum.


--- Quote ---python, it is very much like C
--- End quote ---
One major thing that is not like C is using indent for delimiting blocks and scopes. Some people even see this as an advantage (the Python devs explicitely designed it this way), but to me it is a showstopper which prevents me from considering Python for anything "serious". Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the creeps if whitespace is used as control structure :)

Another thing is the entire bytecode story. Python is bytecode ("compressed ascii" as you said). Inevitably, bytecode/interpreted is slower (on the order of 5-15 times) than native code.
Yes, the bytecode advocates tell you that this does not matter because CPUs get twice as fast every 18 months. Sun has been saying this every 2 days since they released Java in 1995. Without any doubt, they sold millions of CPUs due to Java, too. Let's be honest, wasn't this the purpose of Java in the first place? ;)
But let's face it, Java performance still sucks on 2007 CPUs. The same is true for C# and all the other bytecode languages. This isn't surprising, either. Demand grows faster than hardware. Today's programs and operating systems do a lot more (and often useless) stuff than they did 10 years ago. CPU cycles drain away, and the time when the linear computing power steadily increased is over, too. Quad core CPUs don't help if your single-threaded bytecode program is just too slow.

If I launch Eclipse on my notebook, it takes about two minutes to start. I have no flipping idea what the hell is taking so long just to bring up the IDE, but maybe it's thrashing virtual memory (the notebook has only 1 GB) or something? Code::Blocks takes 5 seconds to start on the same system (and this is already too much).
Or look at nVidia's FX Composer. Just compare version 1.8 (a really great tool) to version 2.0 (now written in C#): 31 MB / 2s startup versus 103 MB / 26s startup. Don't even ask how long it takes to load a workspace. Sorry, but I simply can't take a program for serious, if I can go to the kitchen and get a fresh cup of coffee while it loads.
Hmm... Ok, that's what it was like in 1985, and sometimes you had to switch floppy disks in between too... but hey, we're not in 1985 any more.


--- Quote ---if Boa with all its functionalities is just 38 Mb and CodeBlocks is 35 this should mean something about python vs C
--- End quote ---
It means nothing, really. Code::Blocks rigorously over-allocates memory (in figures of 1000s). Boa/Python might do just the same thing, or it might do something else. In any case, 35 and 38 are on the same order of magnitude. If one of them took 20 MB and the other took 200 MB, then maybe you could tell something, but even then it's hard, since it's not a good measure.

Don't get me wrong, if you think that Python is the thing for your project, and you feel comfortable with it, then go for it. It's better to use something one is comfortable with than something one doesn't feel right with.
I'm just saying that it would not be my personal choice. I think Python is ok for quickly hacking together a Blender plugin, or for scanning a text file from a cron job (great for people like me who find Perl's syntax repulsive). Just for a "real" application.... I'm not so sure.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page