On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Juerd wrote:
Whatever, the new system by contrast seems to me to be at least 400%
more complex, but it won't buy me 400% more functionality.
It will buy you 400% in saving typing, 4000% in less debubbing and
40000% in maintainability(==readability).
Of course drawing any figure on such loose terms as I did in the first
place is not serious and I didn't meant it to be, using them more for
illustrational purposes reflecting my own perception.
But the point is: are you sure that you have a 40k% gain in readability?
That's quite a number!! And the impression I have, that I'm trying to
stress once more (but the last time!) is that trying to "stuff everything"
in the signature system is not increasing it any more and that a
_slightly_ simpler one would do instead.
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
So, for a bit of extra complexity, I get peace of mind for myself and my
users.
The point being, and I'm stressing it once again but no more than once,
that maybe we're adding two bits of extra complexity, whereas just one bit
not only would have been enough, but would have bought you even more peace
of mind. Then again: this is a _feeling_ I got e.g. by reading the
appearently endless discussions about the specifications of sub
parameters, which seem to ensue inherent technical difficulties having to
do with the attempt _conciliate_ too many different paradigms.
Michele
--
If memory serves, Prof. Hermann Zapf considered using Palatino for his wedding
invitation (but reconsidered and used one of his wife's designs instead ---
there's a lesson in that I guess).
- William Adams in comp.text.tex, "Re: Simple Wedding Invitations in LaTeX2e"
