On 12/04/12 11:11, David Seikel wrote: > <rant> > > I'll say again though, if I'm not using it, for ANYTHING, then it's > just a waste of space and time to have on this embedded system that > needs to be as small as possible. I don't need intl, it's only ever > gonna be used in English. I probably don't even need line breaking, > but I don't know yet. If I do, a simple "Is this a space in ASCII?" is > all I'll ever need. Since that's pretty much what I get if I > --disable-linebreak, then it's important to me that it actually works. > > It's not a good thing to waste more time compiling stuff I don't need, > especially when I sometimes have to compile it on a x486, or qemu > pretending it's a x486. The more time I can shave of those 9 hour > compiles, the better. The smaller I can make it, the better. The less > code the government testing labs have to deal with, the better. There > are many reasons why I should get rid of stuff that's entirely useless > for this specific project. Especially if it's just a --disable-foo to > get rid of it. > > I do wish people would stop telling me "Oh just include this, and just > include that, it's all good". I'm the one that knows what the specs > are for this job, and I'm the one that has to shave off as much useless > stuff as is reasonable. I get to decide what goes and what stays based > on my knowledge of the project, so if I'm making an effort to remove > something, there's a good reason why, and people should just stop > second guessing me. "It's just not needed" is a great reason to remove > things if possible in this project. > > In a later, non embedded, not needing to be approved by the government, > not having to run on a x486, project I plan on doing, and another one I > started in January, there will be need for all the bells and whistles. > In this project, and the next embedded project, it's really important > to cut the bloat. > > Remember, one of the important things we claim for EFL is it's small > size and usefulness on embedded systems. I'm reality checking those > claims in some of my work. I need to get it to work on a tiny little > x486. Personally I would have preferred a somewhat more grunty ARM, > on an even smaller board, but I could not convince the client of > that. The x486 board had one thing on it that could not be found on > any ARM board, at a reasonable cost, an interface to some other part of > the hardware of the completed system. Oh well, at least I like this > sort of challange. B-) > > So next time I say "Hey, X is not working well when you disable Y, but > it should", please, I don't want people telling me over and over again > "Just leave Y in, it's all good, you'll need it". Coz at that stage, > I've already decided that I'm better off without it, with damn good > reasons. > > </rant> > > <sleep>
I just wonder why this rant was posted as a reply to my post, all I said is that it's a good thing to have. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
