On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 4:18:00 PM UTC+2, Thomas Passin wrote: > > Edward also mentioned redundancy. IMO, redundancy that helps in error > recovery is good. Remember, there are going to be tens of thousands of > files in the new format eventually. Some of them will have mis-used > directives, some of them will have some kind of corruption. We need to > have a good chance of recovering those files anyway. >
While I would agree that redundancy usually means better error recovery, I really doubt that this can be applied here. The redundant parts that I've mentioned doesn't add any valuable information that could possibly be used for error recovery. And by the way for the redundancy to be used for error recovery you must have error recovery tools that can use it (which AFAIK Leo doesn't have). So the redundancy here means just more complexity, more garbage and nothing valuable in return. As I said before I won't insist on this change, but for the sake of being precise I won't let go false arguments either. You wonder why the speed of reading and writing matters. Perhaps when you use Leo it doesn't matter to you if it will load 200ms faster or not. But If a developer wants to run thousand of tests than 20ms less actually means 20 seconds less. Waiting 20 seconds more for tests to finish, might break developer's thought flow. Keeping developer's thought flow leads to better code. So in the end users will benefit even if they don't care about this micro optimizations. Vitalije -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/4dd661c1-77e3-4c25-808d-7b96afb175dao%40googlegroups.com.
