Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]

[Michael Clark]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/