Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:04:19 +0800 | From | Michael Clark <> | Subject | Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug] |
| |
On 10/31/04 07:28, Tim Hockin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 02:13:37AM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > >>>Bloat is cause by feature creep at every layer, not just the app. >> >>I actually tried to convince maintainers of one package >>that their code is needlessly complex. I did send patches >>to remedy that a bit while fixing real bugs. Rejected. >>Bugs were planned to be fixed by adding more code. >>I've lost all hope on that case. > > > See, there is an ego problem, too. If you rewrite my code, it means > you're better than I am. Rejected. > > Features win over efficiency. Seriously, look at glibc. Hav eyou ever > tried to fix a bug in it? Holy CRAP is that horrible code. Each chunk of > code itself is OK (though it abuses macrso so thoroughly I hesitate to > call it C code). But it tried to support every architecture x every OS. > You know what? I don't CARE if the glibc code compiles on HPUX or not. > HPUX has it's own libc. > > >>I guess this is a reason why bloat problem tend to be solved >>by rewrite from scratch. I could name quite a few cases: > > > From-scratch is a huge risk. But yeah, sometimes it has to be. > > >>It's sort of frightening that someone will need to >>rewrite Xlib or, say, OpenOffice :(
Well, the xlib rewrite is happening (XCB/XCL). One of the reasons cited is the size of xlib.
http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xcb
~mc - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |