Le 18/09/2016 à 11:33, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:35:15PM +0100, g...@lyx.org wrote:


In general the data manipulated by LyX is very small. In my experience
LyX is sometimes slow not because of the size of the data but because of
bad design in certain places (e.g. constant repaintings of whole insets,
constant global updates of macros, repeated calls to costly functions
(0a8b7f6a)), or algorithmic oversights (e.g. quadratic or worse amount
of calls to copy constructors and such, see c51ebd9b, b2b87330,
89175ee0). As a rule of thumb one should more be on the lookout for
these. Of course this remark is not sufficient to rule-out your concern.

Dear Guillaume, let me raise some points on the way you (but not only you)
distribute sentences. LyX is a very big project that evolves with time.
Not everyone knows all of its intricacies. When something new is
introduced, at that time the design maybe Ok, but if something else
is changed, it can make the original design bad. So, the design may not
be bad in absolute and, for example, telling that macros are a bad
design is not fair. I am not the one who updated them the way they are
now, and I was many time upset by some aspects and criticized it. But I
don't even think to say that it was a bad design (on the contrary), and
if I were the author I would be upset by this sentence. Scorning the
work of someone else is neither elegant nor motivating.


Hi Enrico,

You are entirely right. I did not mean that it was bad design at the
start. I should have made that clearer. (Likewise for the other issues I
mentioned.)

Guillaume

Reply via email to