Carlo Sogono wrote: > What constitutes the term "poor library"? Is it the poor construction of > interfaces or poor programming of the library itself?
Well I'm particularly complaining about the interfaces; the set of classes designed to be used by client applications. If these interface classes are well designed I don't really care about the internals as long as they don't leak memory or crash. > From what > I have heard from colleagues the OpenDiameter library for instance has > good interfaces (meaning easy to use) but bad implementation (slow, > memory leaks, etc.). Slow is far more acceptable than memory leaks. Slow can often be fixed by better algorithms, a bit of refactoring or profiling driven optimisation. Memory leaks are criminal. Any library should be designed to prevent memory leakage when the API is used correctly. C and C++ programmers on Linux have Valgrind which really helps with tracking down memory leaks as long as the application/library was designed well to begin with. If it wasn't designed well valgrind won't help. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "Neither noise nor information is predictable." -- Ray Kurzweil _______________________________________________ coders mailing list coders@slug.org.au http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
