Re: [social] Document creation vs. communication

[Chad Smith]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 00:59 -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote: Rod Engelsman wrote: Just to play devil's advocate here... The devil is in the detail :-) So... back to your question. Just lumping Word, Excel and Outlook as one program would be a really bad idea. But if you could significantly reduce the code size by having them share components that they have in common, that would be a good idea. And this is what OOo does. Yes its a trade off between shared code which tends towards monolithic and modularity for individual functions. Really the more often something is used the more important it is that the routines are efficiently coded. Eg putting a character on a screen is probably used by virtually every app, so it should not be necessary to write that routine every time a new app is created. Just go to the routine and call it with the appropriate parameters. When MS does something "right" - (and I mean something everyone seems to be mocking them for) - and we're doing it "wrong", then it's a "trade-off".  Either that, or it is explained away "it's a metric of time of availablity of software".... MS does it "right" because they "had to".  We do it "wrong" because it's inheritied from propriatary software.  It's weird, most of the time, I here flossies say that the reason MSO is modualar is because he bought a bunch of different programs and lumped them together.  And the same flossies say that OOo is monolithic because it was inheritied from StarOffice....  So MS "inheritied" there correct way, and OOo "inheritied" there  wrong way... Sounds like a bunch of crappy excuses to me. And it goes further, people dare to call OOo's monolithic design "elegant"!  That's BULL!  What's "elegant" about downloading 60 MB which expands into 150 MB just so I can type a bookreport and make a budget? The fact is, people, if monolithic design is "BAD" then it is always "BAD".  If modularity is "GOOD" then it is always "GOOD".  And if these two facts are true, in at least one way, MSO is *better* than OOo.  Just because it beats you in one area doesn't mean you pack it up and go home, but you should at least be honest enough with those who ask the question, and with yourselves, to admit that MSO beats you when and where it beats you.  You can't fix a problem that you don't admit *is* a problem. Stop lying to yourselves and admit that the monolithic design of OOo isn't as good as it could be. -CHad Smith