Message-ID: <41844823.6040801@metaparadigm.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:04:19 +0800
From: Michael Clark <michael@metaparadigm.com>
Organization: Metaparadigm Pte Ltd
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041007 Debian/1.7.3-5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Hockin <thockin@hockin.org>
Cc: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>,
       Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]
References: <417550FB.8020404@drdos.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <200410310111.07086.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <20041030222720.GA22753@hockin.org> <200410310213.37712.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <20041030232854.GA25943@hockin.org>
In-Reply-To: <20041030232854.GA25943@hockin.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1642
Lines: 44

On 10/31/04 07:28, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 02:13:37AM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> 
>>>Bloat is cause by feature creep at every layer, not just the app.
>>
>>I actually tried to convince maintainers of one package
>>that their code is needlessly complex. I did send patches
>>to remedy that a bit while fixing real bugs. Rejected.
>>Bugs were planned to be fixed by adding more code.
>>I've lost all hope on that case.
> 
> 
> See, there is an ego problem, too.  If you rewrite my code, it means
> you're better than I am.  Rejected.
> 
> Features win over efficiency.  Seriously, look at glibc.  Hav eyou ever
> tried to fix a bug in it?  Holy CRAP is that horrible code.  Each chunk of
> code itself is OK (though it abuses macrso so thoroughly I hesitate to
> call it C code).  But it tried to support every architecture x every OS.
> You know what?  I don't CARE if the glibc code compiles on HPUX or not.
> HPUX has it's own libc.
> 
> 
>>I guess this is a reason why bloat problem tend to be solved
>>by rewrite from scratch. I could name quite a few cases:
> 
> 
> From-scratch is a huge risk.  But yeah, sometimes it has to be.
> 
> 
>>It's sort of frightening that someone will need to
>>rewrite Xlib or, say, OpenOffice :(

Well, the xlib rewrite is happening (XCB/XCL).
One of the reasons cited is the size of xlib.

   http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/xcb

~mc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/