Mike Driscoll wrote:
I agree with Richie.
> it looks like over 50% have 512 MB of RAM in them or less.
It's not about whether it's a good idea to have programs be smaller and more efficient -- it's about how much work does it take to do, and is that work worth it? If we all thought small size was paramount, we wouldn't be using Python -- and certainly not wxPython -- at all.
One issue with Open Source projects is that much of the work gets done to "scratch an itch" -- that is, someone needs a given feature, etc. enough to write the code.
wxPython could be made smaller, but it would take a lot of work, and for the person doing it, it's a lot easier to buy more RAM than do that work. You'd need a lot of paying customers with tight requirements to justify the work -- that's why it hasn't been done.
An example : I bought a Nokia 770 last year -- it had 64MB of RAM. The 30MB or so that wxPython requires was going to tax that heavily, so I started looking into trying to reduce that. Before I got far at all, I upgraded to a Nokia n800, which has 128MB, which makes the whole problem less important. Of course, I haven't gotten around to the port yet anyway, and by the time I do, there will probably be anew version with 512MB
-Chris
ยทยทยท
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chris.Barker@noaa.gov