On 08/31/2011 03:42 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Version 4 fixes all reported bugs.
Some folks have expressed doubt about the simplistic way of updating the
history file. Specifically the rewriting of all entries. I am
sensitive to that and know a couple of optimizations that can easily be
applied. However before I go there I'd like to get a thumbs up or down
on this approach. It trashes the binary history file format and
replaces it with flat text. Is this something we want?
IMnsHO, external non-text files have serious maintenance problems
including version dependency. Does the external binary file have any
significant advantages over flat text? If not, my experience is that
flat text is 99+% a better choice for maintainability,
interchangeability, and general obviousness.
If an internal binary format has significant advantages, is the cost of
conversion significant (coding time and execution time?) If not, go with
an external text format for the above reasons.
Pure appends have a stylistic appeal as well.
Anecdotally, almost no-one has been able to show me real-world
efficiency gains from binary files for applications where a text file
works, especially for ones read once and/or written once per program
invocation.
geoff steckel
gwes at oat mumble com
