The last blog entry was about a test of 9 Qt-based text editors (those which I could get to run on Arch Linux). And since the comparison of so many programs and values is not really an easy thing, here’s a second post providing some tables which show the programs sorted not by name but by values.
Here’s the table with the overall results. The text editors were compared in terms of 1. memory consumption (most important for me and thus weighted *3), 2. disk space used (weighted *2) and 3. size of packages to download:
Here’s the table comparing memory use:
|<10 MB||10 – 25 MB||26 – 50 MB||> 50 MB|
|02||TEA editor||34.0.1||6 MB|
|04||Catlooking Writer||1.0||15 MB|
|07||kWrite||4.10||64 MB||08||Marave||0.7||78 MB|
Drive space needed
Here’s the drive space table:
|<20 MB||20 – 100 MB||101 – 200 MB||> 200 MB|
|Rank||Text editor||Version||Disk space used|
|02||Catlooking Writer||1.0||+2 MB|
|04||TEA editor||34.0.1||+6 MB|
|08||KoalaWriter||1.0||+363 MB||09||kWrite||4.10||+582 MB|
And the download size table:
|<1 MB||1 – 10 MB||11 – 50 MB||>50 MB|
|04||Catlooking Writer||1.0||+1.2 MB|
|04||TEA editor||34.0.1||+1.2 MB|
|07||KoalaWriter||1.0||+77 MB||08||kWrite||4.10||+126 MB|
When it comes to Qt-based text editors, we can see huge differences between them. With Minerva there’s an editor that really deserves the MIN in its name: It does good in all aspects and is the winner in this test. Rank 4 for the Catlooking Writer shows that even those non-distracting writers don’t necessarily have to be extremely resource-hungry. And well, no surprise: kWrite scores the last rank since it depends on the super-heavy kdelibs.
Next I’d like to pick up the DDD again and create a new version. Then I’ll examine the basic GTK+ applications.
This post was written on 02/27 and automatically published. If I didn’t remove that line that means that I still don’t have a working internet connection.