From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:31:28 -0500

Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote:
>
> Let me chime in with my $0.02. I think that the binsize isn't *that*
> important for the battery life. If a feature adds 10Kbytes to the
> binary, it means 10Kbytes less buffering memory. That is hardly
> measurable at all, only a few frames of an MP3 file.
>
Remember that even now we're looking at at least one upcoming target
with a total 2.3 MB of RAM. Even assuming we dropped the plugin buffer,
and read audio directly from flash, this presents a real binary
constraint while preserving speech support, even if we ignored a desire
to continue supporting the Archos targets.

I'd also like to challenge anyone here to find three features that were
actually rejected with "binary size" being the cause. I'm sure many
people have spoken up saying "I don't think it's worth the binary cost"
but I'm sure no feature's ever been reverted for it, and I doubt many,
if any, flyspray tasks have been closed with that as the sole (or
deciding) cause.
Received on 2008-10-29