On Mon, 30 May 2011 02:58:00 +0200, Jose Armando Garcia
<[email protected]> wrote:
Why is verbosity not useful?
Probably, because it's too expensive? :)
You just remember that the developer that wrote the IO layer was nice
enough to log all IO inputs at verbosity level 3.
OK, but saying this you assume we also have level 1 and 2! Can you give an
example how your code will look with ALL these levels implemented?
I fear on 3 LOC you'll have 10 lines just to provide 'verbosity' logic.
This is why it's expensive.
Problem is not only in digits - HOW you'll decide how many levels to have
and what to show on every level? Don't you scared for your head if it's 1M
LOC app? :)
I can say more: looking at program trace I more interested not in 'give me
more details', but 'give me details on this object'. In your case
it's IO object - turning ON verbosity, you do it for ALL logging, while
you need just an IO module. What you say on this? :)
In this case I prefer snippets like this:
// some IO logic
version(log_io) logDbg(`SENT: ` ~ line);
It allows to see only what you need and I don't give a damn if it's longer
for two words.
Jose, just take it right: long term log libraries are OK
_for_people_who_use_it_. But I see no any reason to copy again and again
old-time solutions - features are not only accumulated, but outdated too
(this is why you are with D, not C :) ). So I want 'clean up' old stuff
and implement just really necessary capabilities (Which Andrei named as
"simple streaming" :) ). Before you(we) implement something, don't think
"Oh, we have verbosity and we can use it like this!" - start from GOAL:
"We have this task, how it can be implemented?" - sure, from this point
you never even think about 'verbosities' (depends from mind, OK).
Well, since people are conservative, I don't expect too much attention,
but anyway thanks you read my ideas - hope it help.
