Subject: Speed is important (was Re: Why We Should Use the STL (fwd))
From: Aaron Lehmann (aaronl@vitelus.com)
Date: Sun Jun 04 2000 - 16:51:06 CDT
As a computer user, one of the most important things to me is fast,
responsive software. I want software that I don't have to wait fractions
of seconds on. Optimization is good - it saves CPU time and makes people
more productive rather than waiting on their software. AbiWord may not
have major speed problems but it sure has its share. Redraw in particular
takes a long time on UNIX. What I would like to see most in AbiWord, as a
second priority to fixing major bugs and implementing features like tables
is SPEEEEEDDDDD! You can probably see how this fits into the discussion,
because switching to STL would be mostly for performance reasons.
But that's just my opinion...
Aaron Lehmann
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Paul Rohr wrote:
> At 02:36 PM 6/4/00 -0500, Eric W. Sink wrote:
> >1a. I am resistant to this change because it is very low bang-for-buck
> >when measured in terms of our current goal of reaching version 1.0.
>
> Agreed. The current Vector code works. There are still far too many
> AbiWord features which don't.
>
> >1b. I am resistant to this change because the practice of avoiding
> >the bleeding edge technologies has served me very well for a very long
> >time.
> >
> >I am not a technophobe, but I have learned to manage project risk.
>
> Perhaps Eric and I have been working together too long, but I can't
> emphasize enough how important this point is.
>
> >2a. I am resistant to a veto because it would be demotivating to
> >the people who are currently investing substantial effort into
> >this project.
>
> Yep. Vetoes are no fun. :-) That doesn't mean they're always wrong,
> though.
>
> >2b. I am resistant to a veto because I cannot definitively say that I
> >have the right to take such an action.
>
> It kind of pains me to say this, but ...
>
> Same here. For most of the lifetime of this project, I've been in a
> position where I was very very willing to put my foot down. Sometimes, I've
> even overdone it. ;-)
>
> However, I've recently had to scale back my role considerably. I strongly
> feel that if I don't have the time to follow-through on my pronouncements,
> then I shouldn't be making them.
>
> Like Eric, I really want to see AbiWord succeed, and the best way to do so
> is to help willing developers channel their efforts into work which will
> clearly benefit the product.
>
> Thus, I'm still willing to try to discourage people from efforts I find
> unpromising, but I'm no longer willing to veto them.
>
> >2c. I am resistant to a veto because I am sympathetic to the issue.
>
> I'm not.
>
> The choice to use C++ **at all** wasn't easy, because it reduced the chances
> that we'll get significant code contributions from the very large population
> of C-only coders out there. For example, the large mass of GNOME developers
> stays out of our codebase entirely. This is not a Good Thing.
>
> Sure, very experienced C++ coders will want to make use of more advanced
> features of the language, but every one of those features we add makes it
> *harder* for other folks to read and expand our code.
>
> As it is, I feel that we're very lucky each time that folks like Martin have
> chosen to surmount our *existing* C++ obstacles so that they can make
> significant contributions to our code.
>
> >As a practical matter, I can raise only two real objections:
> >
> >1. Support for vendor compilers still matters, at least to me.
> >Does anyone know if the QNX compiler can handle templates
> >properly? What about BeOS? Solaris?
>
> What about Amiga? What about various experimental GUI prototypes currently
> being developed that you and I have never heard of?
>
> I've used this line as a sig occasionally:
>
> "The world only needs one word processor -- AbiWord"
>
> The fact that we're Open Source, and we've done our XP job so well, means
> that we have a very real chance that 10 or 20 years from now, it absolutely
> won't matter how obscure your platform of choice is -- you can run a
> full-strength modern word processor on it.
>
> As an example, consider the die-hard Amiga community. It's a dedicated,
> passionate community, but I'm not sure it's large enough to sustain a
> compiler-development team which tracks all the ins and outs of the evolving
> C++ standard.
>
> If those folks really want to exchange content with everyone else, they
> "just" have to port AbiWord. Sure it's work, but it only has to be done
> once.
>
> However, every time we choose a more modern technology feature as a
> pre-requisite for AbiWord development, we risk obsoleting communities that
> aren't firmly in the mainstream.
>
> >2. I still don't see how a switch to STL helps us achieve the
> >kinds of major user-visible improvements which we still need in
> >order to reach a version 1.0.
>
> This the the bottom line, right?
>
> For any advanced language feature, I'd prefer to see a *huge* win in some
> critical area which can't readily be accomplished in some other way.
>
> Paul,
> Luddite #2
>
> PS: Remember, this is not a veto. It's just discouragement. Really. :-)
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Jun 04 2000 - 16:51:10 CDT