From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "P.J. Plauger" To: c++-embedded@cygnus.com Subject: Re: iostreams (was template bloat) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 05:55:00 -0000 Message-id: X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00041.html From: "Kenneth Porter" To: "Embedded C++" 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