coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If I thought that we were gaining large leaps in productivity for 50k, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it.

But realistically what does C++ buy us that C doesn't? I'm just saying the delta between C and C++ isn't that much (classes, exceptions, templates, overloading) and we're not dying for those features.

I'm actually thinking on the other end a bit. What if we can tighten our belts to < 25k for the core? Would we even bother with a bootstrap dll? Could we get away with embedding the CoApp core with everything? Even if the core chubs out to 60k... perhaps we'd still consider binding that directly into target MSIs.


Garrett Serack | Open Source Software Developer | Microsoft Corporation 
I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on Windows.


-----Original Message-----
From: Olaf van der Spek [mailto:olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: Ted Bullock; coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Code?

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, we'd like to have a tiny bootstrap DLL that gets us the engine DLL, and the bootstrap can ship in every MSI.
>
> The bootstrap will be VERY small ( < 2048 bytes ).
>
> The engine DLL we'd like to keep as small as possible too.

Aren't you the one that said bandwidth is cheap? :p

Why is 50 k on the engine DLL so important?

Olaf