14 Oct
2011
14 Oct
'11
12:44 p.m.
Jason McBrien wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Dave McGuire
<mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
But that complexity often isn't a concurrent thing - I don't think there's
a reason that you can't pile an application up with features, but only load
(or install) those that are actually needed on a per-user basis. It's going
back to the Unix "chain lots of little widgets together to suit the task at
hand" philosophy rather than the "build a monster app whether you need all
the features or not" approach that seems the norm today.
I don't give a crap about half the things that some of my regularly-used
apps do. I can completely understand that some people want them, and so I
can understand the developers writing them. I just don't think I should be
forced to have them just because someone else thinks they're good.
If we all had computers that just did exactly what we needed of them and
nothing more, the world would be a better place. I suppose in a way, at
least in the mobile arena, things are going that way too: small apps for
this that and the other running within a common OS framework - so maybe
that trend will happen once again with desktops, too...
cheers
J.
I'm quite certain that the last few people
who know anything about code
optimization (and I don't mean "putting -O in cc's argument list) will die
in our generation, and the current disturbing trend of horrible grinding,
lumbering, bloated slowness will continue to worsen.
The slowness is due to complexity, which is inherent in user-centric
software. If the program is going to be user friendly, it's going to have to
anticipate a user's needs and respond in a logical fashion. Each option you
give the user increases the complexity of code, sometimes exponentially.