On Feb 19, 2012 7:50 PM, "Roy Tam" <roy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2012/2/20 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws>: > > On 02/19/2012 06:15 PM, Roy Tam wrote: > >> > >> 2012/2/20 Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com>: > >>> > >>> A user can still enable SDL with '-sdl' or '-display sdl' but start > >>> making the > >>> default display GTK by default. > >>> > >>> I'd also like to deprecate the SDL display and remove it in a few > >>> releases. > >>> > >> > >> So, will a win32 native UI be written? > > > > > > Certainly not by me :-) It sounds easy to do but it's not. I don't know of > > a widely available terminal widget for Windows. Also, when you look at this > > GTK UI, there's not a whole lot different in terms of what a Windows UI > > would look like. > > > > > >> If not, it will be nice to keep > >> SDL because GTK huge and not that portable for win32 users. > > > > > > Neither are true. GTK is a reasonably small dependency especially given > > that GLIB is a mandatory dependency. I can't imagine that in terms of > > binary size, libsdl is much bigger than gtk/gdk. > > You didn't count pango, cairo, and libpng in. GTK + GDK + cairo + > pango + libpng consume 7.17MB binary size (glib binary is 1.77MB which > doesn't count in as SDL version uses glib too), on the contrary > SDL.dll is single binary and just ~300KB in size > (http://www.libsdl.org/release/SDL-1.2.15-win32.zip). > Not to mention the troublesome of recompiling GTK and its dependencies.
7MB is far from huge. Having to deal with a few dlls doesn't seem like much of a burden to me. > > > > > And Windows is extremely well supported by GTK so the portability comment is > > incorrect. > > > > I didn't mean the portability of function but portability of binary > (no troublesome and hidden settings, easy to put in USB stick and run > everywhere) Considering that you probably cannot even buy a USB stick smaller than 32MB today, I don't see the logic here. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > > >> (Live > >> example is FreeArc(GTK) vs PeaZip(QT)) > > > > > > I don't view QT as an option for a couple reasons. KDE is a second class > > citizen in Linux. Most distributions default to Gnome these days and GTK is > > the toolkit of choice. > > > > QT is also primarily a C++ framework, not a C framework. We already make > > use of glib and GTK integration with a glib application is super easy and > > nice. QT integration would be much less natural. > > > > But I'm not attempting to remove anything in this series. Let's see how > > things actually work and then in a couple releases, we can make decisions > > about SDL and what to do with other platforms. > > > > I'd prefer to have a single UI but I'm not in a position to rule out > > platform specific UIs at the moment. > > > > Regards, > > > > Anthony Liguori > > > >
