Thomas Martitz wrote:
Don't get me wrong. Binsize (and Ram usage even more imho) is very
important and you should always take it into account before committing
something, but the more the binsize is used as a rejection reason, the
less believable it sounds at times.
Well, which is it. Do you believe we're exaggerating (which is a form of
lying, since we're being untruthful about its actual value to us) or do
you believe it's your own perception of the believability that's off?
Binsize affects all users. Tiny features that do very little affect a
very select group. I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to say
"in my opinion this feature isn't worth the binsize" if they honestly
think that the number of users it will benefit is outweighed by the
overall increase in Rockbox size. The goal should be to strive for a
maximum density of "usefulness" for any given size we reach. That means
less useful features should be considered critically even if they have
small binsize costs, just because they're useful to only an
exceptionally small group. They're a dilution of the total "usefulness
density."
