Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007, James Knott wrote: > Darryl Gregorash wrote: > > On 2007-03-03 10:05, peter nikolic wrote: > >> The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a > >> date > >> > >> example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard > >> date you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date > >> normally the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ > >> the important bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can > >> read the rest if you need it .. > >> > >> YMMV Mine dont > >> > >> Pete . > > > > There is nothing anywhere in the English language that compels you to > > read left-to-right only -- in your example, start reading at the other > > end ;-) > > Now, which end has the month? ;-) well you could cuase total mayhem " DD/MM//MM/DD" Pete . -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
> > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a > > date Yes, there are many ways to ridicule a topic, the line above is a classic case. The big issue is gigabytes of bloat, yet some take issue with the ...date format... If only 1/4 of the SuSE programmers used 1/4 of this level of detail in their search for tigfht code, we would get 10.2 in a single cd, it would run perfectly with 128 mb ram and it would be 4 times as fast as it is now.. yea, i know, not needed in the days of 4 gigahz machines with oodles of ram, but, if one considered the possibilities... dimitris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 17:11 -0800, David Brodbeck wrote: > John R. Sowden wrote: > > A while back this thread mentioned Borland's 'Smart Linking' in one of its > > Pascal compilers, but not the current (at the time) C compiler). As this > > process only makes sense to minimize program size, therefore decreasing > > load > > time, and probably run time, as more RAM is available, it this process > > being > > used by today's current compilers? > > > > I don't know, but considering how few applications are statically-linked > these days, is there really a big payoff? It was different when the > target was a DOS program, since those usually had to carry all their > libs along with them. Correct, but still, looking at the size of some binaries, it is obvious that they are statically linking lots of things. It does not make much sens to put into external libraries things that nobody else is going to use. The dynamic libraries can not be trimmed. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFF6ipPtTMYHG2NR9URAnycAJ0Xwp6UiLke4BzY8aBIB+QkYmyheACeJ4Xl Av4AEdOvbIJdVAh/P9wC/AM= =wvLt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 12:17 -0800, John R. Sowden wrote: > A while back this thread mentioned Borland's 'Smart Linking' in one of its > Pascal compilers, but not the current (at the time) C compiler). As this > process only makes sense to minimize program size, therefore decreasing load > time, and probably run time, as more RAM is available, it this process being > used by today's current compilers? > > If not, why not? Is Borland holding the rights, like the tire and oil > companies buying and closing the trains, or Intuit's buying 'In House > Accountant', then shelving it.? No, no. Free Pascal uses the same or similar technique. I don't know how they do it, but in Borland case they could do it because TPascal did not use the "standard" linker and .obj file structure with extra information, but a different one (.tpu) designed for the purpose. Their C compiler used a standard linker (almost), so it didn't have smart linking. On the other hand... I doubt the technique is usefull with OOP. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFF6hzGtTMYHG2NR9URAkAXAJ4t+RY+Hi34BaOLYsa9q9XgYc7LYQCeI4OM 3sUrFkhIzTR4ylZ+KwHZYIQ= =tO8A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
John R. Sowden wrote: > A while back this thread mentioned Borland's 'Smart Linking' in one of its > Pascal compilers, but not the current (at the time) C compiler). As this > process only makes sense to minimize program size, therefore decreasing load > time, and probably run time, as more RAM is available, it this process being > used by today's current compilers? > I don't know, but considering how few applications are statically-linked these days, is there really a big payoff? It was different when the target was a DOS program, since those usually had to carry all their libs along with them. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007 03:02:19 am Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Friday 2007-03-02 at 20:09 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote: > > We just went into production at my current workspace with an > > enterprise-scale application that took three programmers a little over a > > year to code. The design and requirements took roughly four years. We're > > actually on the ninth point-release since 1/2/07 (2.1.07 for those on > > the right side of the Atlantic). > > Which leaves me without knowing for certain which month it is, the 2nd or > the first... So, assuming it is February, why not "7-2-1"? Or the ISO > format in my reply-leadin line above ;-) There is no doubt seeing > "2007-03-02" which is the year and the month and the day. Well, not wanting to get dragged down in the "my-date-format-is-better-than-yours" war, how's 2007-01-02? (January 2nd - a.k.a. the first Monday business day in California this year.) > > > Had we done the code in C++ or even ASM, it is possible we could have > > either expanded the code or lessened it. I don't know at this time and it > > is a mute point. Writing in a 3GL such as C# allowed us to not worry > > about memory management in the way we would have been forced to had we > > writtin in a 2GL or - heaven forbid - assembler. > > I'm interested in this: can you expand, or point to a link? Maybe I'll > have a look at the wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-generation_programming_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language#Generational_view Though not universally agreed-upon - I tend to lump C#/Java or other Form-based languages with the 3GL crowd. Many like to see C++ as either a 3GL or a 2GL. I > > > The "bloat" to which many people refer often is a result of added > > functionality. Let's face it - adding a GUI with lots of dummy-proof > > features - adds code and complexity. I'm sure Vi has a lot less code > > than does OpenOffice. > > I'll give an example, an old one. > > I don't remember which version of Turbo Pascal produced a minumum ~30 KiB > exe, just to write a "hello world" in the screen. Then, they invented what > they called "smart linking", and it went down to 2 or 4 KiB! The thing is > that their linker was clever enough to remove all functions from the > linked libraries not actually called in the program. The "Turbo C" version > of the same vintage didn't have the same ability. You know, I remember that. I used to write Pascal on my Apple II after I realized the limitations of BASIC. Heh! -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On 2007-03-03 14:06, James Knott wrote: > Darryl Gregorash wrote: > >> On 2007-03-03 10:05, peter nikolic wrote: >> >> >>> The ISO standard of /MM/DD >>> >>> >>> >> There is nothing anywhere in the English language that compels you to >> read left-to-right only -- in your example, start reading at the other >> end ;-) >> >> >> > Now, which end has the month? ;-) > > Lemme see.. the left end is the year, the right end is the day -- I think that means the middle end is the month, yes? (Think of it as you would a transistor ;-) ) -- Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- HG Wells -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
Am Samstag, 3. März 2007 schrieb peter nikolic: > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: > > > DD/MM/ > > > > > > the best all round soloution .. > > > > No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, > > standards. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > >Carlos E. R. > > Not Realy . > > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date It's -MM-DD (ISO 8601/EN 28601). And it has the special properties that it can be sorted numerically and even alphabetically. > [...] Herbert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
A while back this thread mentioned Borland's 'Smart Linking' in one of its Pascal compilers, but not the current (at the time) C compiler). As this process only makes sense to minimize program size, therefore decreasing load time, and probably run time, as more RAM is available, it this process being used by today's current compilers? If not, why not? Is Borland holding the rights, like the tire and oil companies buying and closing the trains, or Intuit's buying 'In House Accountant', then shelving it.? -- John R. Sowden AMERICAN SENTRY SYSTEMS, INC. Residential & Commercial Alarm Service UL Listed Central Station Serving the San Francisco Bay Area Since 1967 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.americansentry.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
Darryl Gregorash wrote: > On 2007-03-03 10:05, peter nikolic wrote: > >> The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date >> >> example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard date >> you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date normally >> the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ the important >> bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can read the rest if >> you need it .. >> >> YMMV Mine dont >> >> Pete . >> >> > There is nothing anywhere in the English language that compels you to > read left-to-right only -- in your example, start reading at the other > end ;-) > > Now, which end has the month? ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
peter nikolic wrote: > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: >> >>> DD/MM/ >>> >>> the best all round soloution .. >>> >> No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, >> standards. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >>Carlos E. R. >> > > > Not Realy . > > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date > > example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard date > you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date normally > the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ the important > bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can read the rest if > you need it .. > > YMMV Mine dont > > Pete . > Now, if you want your computer to sort on date, which method works best? With ISO, the most significant value is on the left, just like all other numeric calculations. If you were to write the numbers for a dollar fifty, would you write $50.1 ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
Oops! I sent my last message as a PM as well as to the list. Sorry, jdd :( It comes of using Evolution at home and Thunderbird at work. Cheers, Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 16:05 -, peter nikolic wrote: > > > DD/MM/ > > > the best all round soloution .. > > No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, > > standards. > > Not Realy . > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date > > example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard date > you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date normally > the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ the important > bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can read the rest if > you need it .. It is not efficient for you because it is not what you are used to. But, being a standard, it avoids confusion, specially in international conversations. It is in fact very efficient, because the most significant number is always written at the left, and the least at the right - therefore years must go to the left, then month, then day. It is the logical way. A bunch of dates can be sorted just by alphabetical sort, like in a directory listing. And no, it is not the way I grew up which, nor my country use. It feels strange, but it is the standard, so I use it. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFF6cIotTMYHG2NR9URAs1HAJwMZesA4f/WGKEa3fgBHHihhsgtpgCeKQ/Z 0lqCA8/5agIQxoir93ipFlo= =0E9M -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 17:18 +0100, jdd wrote: > subscribe to the ISO standard commissions (I'm sure they are free) Ha, ha, ha! ROFL Cheers, Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007 17:25, peter nikolic wrote: > > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a > > > date > > > > Translated into English: "It's not what I'm used to, so it's bad" > > > > Having grown up in a country that uses mmdd I much prefer the ISO > > standard > > Now your trying to put words i have not used into usethat is not what i > said at all ... I quoted what you actually said, and then I translated it. The only reason you find your way of doing things the most efficient, is that it is the way you learned as a child and have used ever since. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I tend to feel the same way about things I learned as a child. They just come more "naturally" to me, but of course it's just learned behaviour. It's the user interface discussion all over again. "It's more intuitive to have the menu on the lower left hand side of the screen". No it isn't. It's just what everyone has learned since anno dazumal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On 2007-03-03 10:05, peter nikolic wrote: > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: >> >>> DD/MM/ >>> >>> the best all round soloution .. >>> >> No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, >> standards. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >>Carlos E. R. >> > > > Not Realy . > > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date > > example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard date > you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date normally > the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ the important > bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can read the rest if > you need it .. > > YMMV Mine dont > > Pete . > There is nothing anywhere in the English language that compels you to read left-to-right only -- in your example, start reading at the other end ;-) -- slleW GH -- .olah a htiw ysuolaej si noitangidni laroM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007, peter nikolic wrote: > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date > It doesn't have to be the most efficient. It is no great shakes for a human to extract the last two digits and interpret them as a day number. What is more important for me is that it allows sorting and searching to be handled purely numerically because mmdd changes day by day by simple addition. Dylan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Anders Johansson wrote: > On Saturday 03 March 2007 17:05, peter nikolic wrote: > > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > > The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: > > > > DD/MM/ > > > > > > > > the best all round soloution .. > > > > > > No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, > > > standards. > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > >Carlos E. R. > > > > Not Realy . > > > > > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a > > date > > Translated into English: "It's not what I'm used to, so it's bad" > > Having grown up in a country that uses mmdd I much prefer the ISO > standard Now your trying to put words i have not used into usethat is not what i said at all ... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
peter nikolic wrote: The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date it is better not because it's more efficient, but because it's the standard and so it's prone to be understood by anybody. If you don't like it, subscribe to the ISO standard commissions (I'm sure they are free) and argue for a change... example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard date you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date normally the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ the important bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can read the rest if you need it .. when I give my age, I say I'm from 1946, the month and days don't mean anything... jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Lucien Dodin, inventeur http://lucien.dodin.net/index.shtml -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007 17:05, peter nikolic wrote: > On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: > > > DD/MM/ > > > > > > the best all round soloution .. > > > > No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, > > standards. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > >Carlos E. R. > > Not Realy . > > > The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date Translated into English: "It's not what I'm used to, so it's bad" Having grown up in a country that uses mmdd I much prefer the ISO standard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: > > DD/MM/ > > > > the best all round soloution .. > > No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, > standards. > > -- > Cheers, >Carlos E. R. Not Realy . The ISO standard of /MM/DD is not the most efficent way of using a date example " you want to know the date you look at the ISO standard date you have to wade thru the year the month to find the day date normally the most used part of the date string whereas DD/MM/ the important bit is right at th front of the string DD then you can read the rest if you need it .. YMMV Mine dont Pete . -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-03-03 at 11:39 -, peter nikolic wrote: > DD/MM/ > > the best all round soloution .. No, the best is following the ISO standard. That's what they are for, standards. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFF6WYYtTMYHG2NR9URAnhBAJ9KqFN8hP7Er0H9cYnI/g1rx+zl7QCdFkka fK0ifkCegyBwaYEHuGBSn+8= =Q192 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Friday 2007-03-02 at 20:09 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote: > > We just went into production at my current workspace with an > > enterprise-scale application that took three programmers a little over a > > year to code. The design and requirements took roughly four years. We're > > actually on the ninth point-release since 1/2/07 (2.1.07 for those on > > the right side of the Atlantic). > > Which leaves me without knowing for certain which month it is, the 2nd or > the first... So, assuming it is February, why not "7-2-1"? Or the ISO > format in my reply-leadin line above ;-) There is no doubt seeing > "2007-03-02" which is the year and the month and the day. > > > Had we done the code in C++ or even ASM, it is possible we could have > > either expanded the code or lessened it. I don't know at this time and it > > is a mute point. Writing in a 3GL such as C# allowed us to not worry > > about memory management in the way we would have been forced to had we > > writtin in a 2GL or - heaven forbid - assembler. > > I'm interested in this: can you expand, or point to a link? Maybe I'll > have a look at the wikipedia. > > > The "bloat" to which many people refer often is a result of added > > functionality. Let's face it - adding a GUI with lots of dummy-proof > > features - adds code and complexity. I'm sure Vi has a lot less code > > than does OpenOffice. > > I'll give an example, an old one. > > I don't remember which version of Turbo Pascal produced a minumum ~30 KiB > exe, just to write a "hello world" in the screen. Then, they invented what > they called "smart linking", and it went down to 2 or 4 KiB! The thing is > that their linker was clever enough to remove all functions from the > linked libraries not actually called in the program. The "Turbo C" version > of the same vintage didn't have the same ability. > > -- > Cheers, >Carlos E. R. DD/MM/ the best all round soloution .. Pete . -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-03-02 at 20:09 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote: > We just went into production at my current workspace with an enterprise-scale > application that took three programmers a little over a year to code. The > design and requirements took roughly four years. We're actually on the ninth > point-release since 1/2/07 (2.1.07 for those on the right side of the > Atlantic). Which leaves me without knowing for certain which month it is, the 2nd or the first... So, assuming it is February, why not "7-2-1"? Or the ISO format in my reply-leadin line above ;-) There is no doubt seeing "2007-03-02" which is the year and the month and the day. > Had we done the code in C++ or even ASM, it is possible we could have either > expanded the code or lessened it. I don't know at this time and it is a mute > point. Writing in a 3GL such as C# allowed us to not worry about memory > management in the way we would have been forced to had we writtin in a 2GL > or - heaven forbid - assembler. I'm interested in this: can you expand, or point to a link? Maybe I'll have a look at the wikipedia. > The "bloat" to which many people refer often is a result of added > functionality. Let's face it - adding a GUI with lots of dummy-proof > features - adds code and complexity. I'm sure Vi has a lot less code than > does OpenOffice. I'll give an example, an old one. I don't remember which version of Turbo Pascal produced a minumum ~30 KiB exe, just to write a "hello world" in the screen. Then, they invented what they called "smart linking", and it went down to 2 or 4 KiB! The thing is that their linker was clever enough to remove all functions from the linked libraries not actually called in the program. The "Turbo C" version of the same vintage didn't have the same ability. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFF6VW9tTMYHG2NR9URAiEEAJ4wh7F3qE+MG7DvQFKHMIMTNmrUjgCcCZrh VhFsyn1EHHvlVVySQnp9K6A= =y1Au -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Programming Bloat (WAS: Re: [opensuse] frustration and suggestions)
On Friday 02 March 2007 06:09:15 pm Bruce Marshall wrote: > On Friday 02 March 2007 19:58, kanenas wrote: > > installed, it was removed from the initial install. > > Regarding my frustration, it should be clear that it is not linux > > bashing. It is directed at the "features galore, never mind the crashes" > > attitude of more and more "programmers". It is amazing that someone > > actually defended bloated programming in this thread, that is just as bad > > as firefox catching itself crashing, imo they should concentrate on > > eliminating the crashes, not in catching them! > > Almost all of us experience no crashes And I suspect you have never > written a program and therefore know nothing of what you are spewing... > > This is a ridiculous discussion. Not entirely. As a long-time programmer - I wrote my first BASIC code in '79 in fifth grade on a TRS-80 - and now programming manager, I understand the need to balance between "bloat" and "efficency." People like me are always trying to provide the best possible solution at the lowest possible cost. We just went into production at my current workspace with an enterprise-scale application that took three programmers a little over a year to code. The design and requirements took roughly four years. We're actually on the ninth point-release since 1/2/07 (2.1.07 for those on the right side of the Atlantic). I'm going to spend the weekend testing release 10 - 1.0.1.10 - before releasing it Tuesday. I had one of the programmers do an informal survey of the code. Written in C#, the code had roughly 277,000 lines in several dozen assemblies. Many assemblies are re-used while some are only used once. We also used some third-party libraries, such as an image viewer and DLL interfaces to a receipt printer, touch screen device and label printers. Had we done the code in C++ or even ASM, it is possible we could have either expanded the code or lessened it. I don't know at this time and it is a mute point. Writing in a 3GL such as C# allowed us to not worry about memory management in the way we would have been forced to had we writtin in a 2GL or - heaven forbid - assembler. The "bloat" to which many people refer often is a result of added functionality. Let's face it - adding a GUI with lots of dummy-proof features - adds code and complexity. I'm sure Vi has a lot less code than does OpenOffice. I'm sure many of the Linux programmers here - Marcus and the others - are constantly balancing their own need to produce clean and efficient code with delays imposed on them by pointy-haired managers such as myself. In fact, it has been documented that the only reason the ill-fated Zen got into 10.1 was a result of pointy-haired managers insisting it go regardless. Instead of grief, I would give them applause. -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
