Richard Menedetter wrote:
>
> It's OK to make something a bit larger, if you get something in return for
> it. (eg it's OK to use 10% more gas, if the resulting vehicle can carry
> twice the weight than a normal vehicle ;)
I agree.
> But if it uses 10% more gas, because 10% of the gas, are purred to the
> street, than it is not good (tm) ;)
We agree. Even on the tm. But I think it might be LD's. <G> ?
<Snipped some more agreeable stuff>
> BUT: according to my feeling bloat is NOT if you use C instead of
> assembler.
> You simply trade something for something.
> assembler is:
> + fast
> + small
> - unportable
> - EXTREMELY hard to use for large projects
> - error prone
Well, it's not error prone for me, and maybe I would delete the capitalized
EXTREMELY and just say it's hard to use for large projects but not unuseable.
> IMHO a kernel which is 30% bigger is acceptable, if there are less bugs,
> because the code is more 'readable', and you can simply recompile on
> different platforms to get a running system. (take the kernel, and compile
> it for X86, PPC, Alpha, X86-64, Merced, .....)
Sure. If only a 30% increase in size shows a reasonable improvement then it
could be called a "profit". <G>
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
- The internet is infected - Windows is a VIRUS !!
--
