On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:35:15PM +0100, g...@lyx.org wrote: > > In general the data manipulated by LyX is very small. In my experience > LyX is sometimes slow not because of the size of the data but because of > bad design in certain places (e.g. constant repaintings of whole insets, > constant global updates of macros, repeated calls to costly functions > (0a8b7f6a)), or algorithmic oversights (e.g. quadratic or worse amount > of calls to copy constructors and such, see c51ebd9b, b2b87330, > 89175ee0). As a rule of thumb one should more be on the lookout for > these. Of course this remark is not sufficient to rule-out your concern.
Dear Guillaume, let me raise some points on the way you (but not only you) distribute sentences. LyX is a very big project that evolves with time. Not everyone knows all of its intricacies. When something new is introduced, at that time the design maybe Ok, but if something else is changed, it can make the original design bad. So, the design may not be bad in absolute and, for example, telling that macros are a bad design is not fair. I am not the one who updated them the way they are now, and I was many time upset by some aspects and criticized it. But I don't even think to say that it was a bad design (on the contrary), and if I were the author I would be upset by this sentence. Scorning the work of someone else is neither elegant nor motivating. Sincerely yours -- Enrico
