Re: iostreams (was template bloat)

["P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com>]

From: "Kenneth Porter" <shiva@well.com>
To: "Embedded C++" <c++-embedded@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:58:46 +0700
Subject: Re: iostreams (was template bloat)

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:34:39 +1000, Chris Johns wrote:

>iostream goes beyond just a printf replacement with type-safety. It
>allows all sorts of stream management and control to be performed. I see
>very little need for this in an embedded system.

Depends on the embedded system. You might not want it for a microwave
oven, but it would be handy in some network toasters like a router or
even an advanced VCR with web-based programming. Knowing the cost of
iostreams lets one decide whether it makes sense to use it for a given
application.

How hard is it to factor iostreams so that one doesn't get more than
one needs?

[pjp]  It's much easier to factor Embedded C++, which is one of the main
reasons for defining that subset. For the size of embedded systems
contemplated by the EC++ Technical Committee, EC++ makes eminent
sense:

NEC Semiconductor Application Engineering Division reports
the following typical embedded code sizes:

Application      Current KB        Future KB

camera           48-64                96-256
rice cooker      16-48                64
celluar phone   384+                768+
printer             32-64               64-128
television         16-48              32-96
VCR               192-256           320+
HDD               32-64               64-128