[dev] unsubscribe
Re: [dev] unsubscribe
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:02:53 -0400 Yih Lerh Huang wrote: > unsubscribe > dev+unsubscr...@suckless.org Tip: You can almost always find the address to send it in the List-Unsubscribe header in the e-mail.
Re: [dev] unsubscribe
unsubscribe?
Re: [dev] unsubscribe
> unsubscribe :(
[dev] unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Re: [dev] Re: Worse is better: Plan9 and Linux?
Hello Laslo! Am 30. Oktober 2019 17:38:27 MEZ schrieb Laslo Hunhold : >On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:02:54 +0100 >Peter Wiehe wrote: > >Dear Peter, > >> I didn't have simple programs in mind when I said "fast hack". >> Instead of fast hacks I could call it "direct coding with minimal >> design". Maybe that's not much of a difference. I think often >> developers themselves call it a fast hack. Sorry if that's >> disrespectful. I try to avoid that term in the future. >> >> So what do you think of Plan9 when you say simple UI programs are >> harder to maintain? > >central to every program, I think, are data structures. If you manage >to do that right, everything else seems to fall into place. That's at >least the experience I had over the last few years. > >Many people think that the UI somehow reflects data structures, but >often the opposite is true. Many people that develop software with >"simple UIs" often have a UI-driven approach, yielding horrible data >structures and lots of hacky code as they try to compensate the bad >data structures. > >If you ask me, if you find your data structures to be flawed and you >cannot fix it, you might as well start again and redefine your data >structures. This does not mean that your interface has to change, just >the internal representation. > >To answer your question in a way: Little code does not mean little >time, the opposite is true. It often takes a lot of time, >reconsideration and rewriting to formulate code that is short, elegant >and easy to maintain and extend. > >With best regards > >Laslo So my question to you is: how do you put Linux and Plan9 into this scala? (I get the feeling you deliberately don't want to understand my question.) Kind regards Peter
Re: [dev] Re: Worse is better: Plan9 and Linux?
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:02:54 +0100 Peter Wiehe wrote: Dear Peter, > I didn't have simple programs in mind when I said "fast hack". > Instead of fast hacks I could call it "direct coding with minimal > design". Maybe that's not much of a difference. I think often > developers themselves call it a fast hack. Sorry if that's > disrespectful. I try to avoid that term in the future. > > So what do you think of Plan9 when you say simple UI programs are > harder to maintain? central to every program, I think, are data structures. If you manage to do that right, everything else seems to fall into place. That's at least the experience I had over the last few years. Many people think that the UI somehow reflects data structures, but often the opposite is true. Many people that develop software with "simple UIs" often have a UI-driven approach, yielding horrible data structures and lots of hacky code as they try to compensate the bad data structures. If you ask me, if you find your data structures to be flawed and you cannot fix it, you might as well start again and redefine your data structures. This does not mean that your interface has to change, just the internal representation. To answer your question in a way: Little code does not mean little time, the opposite is true. It often takes a lot of time, reconsideration and rewriting to formulate code that is short, elegant and easy to maintain and extend. With best regards Laslo pgpx5DhInn9GK.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [dev] Re: Worse is better: Plan9 and Linux?
Am 30. Oktober 2019 15:52:36 MEZ schrieb Cem Keylan :
>Hello Peter,
>
>On 19/10/30 03:40PM, Peter Wiehe wrote:
>> Hi Laslo and list!
>>
>> Laslo Hunhold schrieb am Di., 29. Okt. 2019 08:59:
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:58:54 +0100
>> > Peter Wiehe wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Peter,
>> >
>> > > It seems that you like Plan9 and dislike the Linux kernel. And
>you
>> > > seem to agree to "Worse is Better" which is presented here:
>> > > https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
>> > > (I think "Better" is also called "It needs a tough
>cook/programmer to
>> > > make a chicken tender" or similar.)
>> > >
>> > > But that seems to be a contradiction! For me Plan9 seems to be of
>the
>> > > "better" kind (Some effort was done to create a simple interfac)
>and
>> > > Linux seems of the "worse" kind (Minimal effort in elegant
>design).
>> > > ("Better" and "worse" not judging but strictly in the context as
>> > > mentioned above.)
>> > >
>> > > Any clarification on this is welcome.
>> >
>> > I always understood the "Worse is better" principle to be an ironic
>> > take on many peoples' opinion that solutions with fewer features
>are
>> > worse than those with more.
>> >
>> > With best regards
>> >
>> > Laslo
>> >
>> OK. Then my questions are:
>>
>> a) Should one (in your opinion) program many features or few?
>>
>> b) Should one (in your opinion) go for the fast hack or the simple
>user
>> interface?
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Wiehe
>>
>>
>>
>Calling simple tools that are much more stable than most programs out
>there a "fast hack" is a little disrespectful in my opinion. The
>programs with the "simple user interface" are usually the hacky ones,
>as the codebase gets larger it gets harder to maintain. With such large
>codebase, developers tend to hack in their fixes instead of rewriting a
>faulty section. That is my opinion anyways.
>
>Best regards,
>Cem
Thanks for your opinion, Cem.
I didn't have simple programs in mind when I said "fast hack". Instead of fast
hacks I could call it "direct coding with minimal design". Maybe that's not
much of a difference. I think often developers themselves call it a fast hack.
Sorry if that's disrespectful. I try to avoid that term in the future.
So what do you think of Plan9 when you say simple UI programs are harder to
maintain?
Kind regards
Peter
Re: [dev] Re: Worse is better: Plan9 and Linux?
Hello Peter,
On 19/10/30 03:40PM, Peter Wiehe wrote:
> Hi Laslo and list!
>
> Laslo Hunhold schrieb am Di., 29. Okt. 2019 08:59:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:58:54 +0100
> > Peter Wiehe wrote:
> >
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > > It seems that you like Plan9 and dislike the Linux kernel. And you
> > > seem to agree to "Worse is Better" which is presented here:
> > > https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
> > > (I think "Better" is also called "It needs a tough cook/programmer to
> > > make a chicken tender" or similar.)
> > >
> > > But that seems to be a contradiction! For me Plan9 seems to be of the
> > > "better" kind (Some effort was done to create a simple interfac) and
> > > Linux seems of the "worse" kind (Minimal effort in elegant design).
> > > ("Better" and "worse" not judging but strictly in the context as
> > > mentioned above.)
> > >
> > > Any clarification on this is welcome.
> >
> > I always understood the "Worse is better" principle to be an ironic
> > take on many peoples' opinion that solutions with fewer features are
> > worse than those with more.
> >
> > With best regards
> >
> > Laslo
> >
> OK. Then my questions are:
>
> a) Should one (in your opinion) program many features or few?
>
> b) Should one (in your opinion) go for the fast hack or the simple user
> interface?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Wiehe
>
>
>
Calling simple tools that are much more stable than most programs out
there a "fast hack" is a little disrespectful in my opinion. The
programs with the "simple user interface" are usually the hacky ones,
as the codebase gets larger it gets harder to maintain. With such large
codebase, developers tend to hack in their fixes instead of rewriting a
faulty section. That is my opinion anyways.
Best regards,
Cem
[dev] Re: Worse is better: Plan9 and Linux?
Hi Laslo and list!
Laslo Hunhold schrieb am Di., 29. Okt. 2019 08:59:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:58:54 +0100
Peter Wiehe wrote:
Dear Peter,
> It seems that you like Plan9 and dislike the Linux kernel. And you
> seem to agree to "Worse is Better" which is presented here:
> https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
> (I think "Better" is also called "It needs a tough cook/programmer to
> make a chicken tender" or similar.)
>
> But that seems to be a contradiction! For me Plan9 seems to be of the
> "better" kind (Some effort was done to create a simple interfac) and
> Linux seems of the "worse" kind (Minimal effort in elegant design).
> ("Better" and "worse" not judging but strictly in the context as
> mentioned above.)
>
> Any clarification on this is welcome.
I always understood the "Worse is better" principle to be an ironic
take on many peoples' opinion that solutions with fewer features are
worse than those with more.
With best regards
Laslo
OK. Then my questions are:
a) Should one (in your opinion) program many features or few?
b) Should one (in your opinion) go for the fast hack or the simple user
interface?
Kind regards
Peter Wiehe
