[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chad Smith wrote:
MS does it "right" because they "had to". We do it "wrong" because
it's inherited from proprietary software. It's weird, most of the
time, I here flossies say that the reason MSO is modular is because
he bought a bunch of different programs and lumped them together.
And the same flossies say that OOo is monolithic because it was
inherited from StarOffice.... So MS "inherited" there correct way,
and OOo "inherited" there wrong way...
I'm not sure you read my email. OOo and MSO are designed quite
differently. And I'm not sure what this trade-off you're talking about
is. OOo components share most of the code. Putting them together is
reasonable because it significantly reduces the amount of code you
(actually, Star Division) have to deal with. MSO components, from what
I can tell, seem to share very little. They don't seem to have much to
gain from being amalgamated.
I'm not sure you read *my* email. I wasn't directly responding to you -
I was *quoting* Ian. If you would look at what I sent, then you would
see that. Ian used the term "trade-off" and I was responding to that.
I wish you'd understand that these really are different designs. For
example, OOo is very strong in vector graphics, and OOo has its own
GUI routines (so it can be cross-platform). Right there, you have a
lot of code that is in common among at least several applications and
should not be duplicated.
Just as modularity is important for good design, so is code reuse.
I understand that. In fact, I really like that - just like GIMP and the
GTK+ Toolkit. Right? Am I "understanding" what you are saying? Am I
"following" your conversation?
I wasn't responding to you, I was obviously, directly, with quotes and
all, responding to Ian's email. Stop being so ego centric. The world
doesn't revolve around Daniel. I wasn't talking to Daniel. I was very
clearly responding to Ian.
Another thing you have to realize is that no one here has said that
the MS Office model is crap. Based on my understanding of the apps
(that they have little to share), it seems just fine to me. Personally
I prefer OOo but that's because OOo gives me some things (vector
graphics, cross platform, etc) that are important to me.
Don't make me laugh! People call MSO crap every day! *Especially* on
this project's mailing lists.
And it goes further, people dare to call OOo's monolithic design
"elegant"! That's BULL!
1) Are you a developer? Do you even follow what we're trying to say here?
No I am not a developer, but Yes I do follow what you're trying to say
here. It is always your MO to attack my understanding when I disagree
with you. It's really, REALLY, *R E A L L Y* old, and it only shows
your lack of a real argument. One does not need to be a mechanic to
know that a 2006 Viper runs better than a 1969 Rabbit. One does not
need to be a doctor to follow a discussion on how exercise improves
health. Please do not insult me by insinuating that since I haven't
written a computer program that I am incapable of understanding the
basics of monolithic versus modular design. It's very simple. One big
program to do everything (like OOo) versus a lot of smaller programs
that have limited abilities (like MSO).
2) Who called it "elegant"?
Ian has, many times. Most recently, in the email I replied to.
I hope it wasn't me. I like the idea of sharing code where it makes
sense, the way OOo does. But at the same time, that shouldn't be taken
to mean that OOo isn't bloated.
What's "elegant" about downloading 60 MB which expands into 150 MB
just so I can type a book report and make a budget?
If what you want is a book report, consider using Abiword. OOo
provides a lot of very advanced functionality which isn't interesting
for simple documents.
I said do a book report *AND* make a budget. Therefore I need a word
processor and a spreadsheet. I release I could do both with a piece of
paper and a pencil - but that's true of most everything you can do with
a computer. Please don't be so limited in your thinking. I'm talking
about being able to do so easily, conveniently, and on the computer.
Question: How much space does MS Office take? I was sure it was a heck
of a lot more than 150 MB. I've heard it's close to 500 MB. Wouldn't
this be an example of how sharing code can reduce the total amount of
code?
Less than 150 MB. I'm not on my home computer, but I've looked at it
before - and it was less the last time I looked
On this Mac I'm using, the Office 2001 folder contains 176 MB of stuff -
but that includes all the clip art, templates, help files, wizards,
assistants, translations, and everything else. It also includes
Entourage, which is an email, PIM, calendar program. All of that on a
Mac, so you can't possibly claim the hidden so-called "Office hooks"
that MS allegedly puts in Windows. (That claim is bunk, btw.) All of
that in separate programs that I can pick and choose from, so if I just
need a spreadsheet and word processor, I can delete PowerPoint and
Entourage. And this is on a non-MS operating system - Mac OS 9.22.
The fact is, people, if monolithic design is "BAD" then it is always
"BAD".
Like Obi-Wan said "only a Sith speaks in absolutes..." ;-)
I wasn't aware that George Lucas's fictional characters had anything to
do with elegant design of computer programs.
I'm sorry my friend, life isn't as simple as a 1-sentence catch
phrase. Lumping code together for no reason other than to lump it
together is very bad design. Reusing code is good design. Dealing with
small self-contained components is good design. These two often go
together, some times they don't.
Funny, you're the one who quoted a movie character's one sentence catch
phrase to attempt to belittle my point.
-Chad Smith
