Subject: [Fwd: [linux-audio-dev] defending simplicity]
From: David O'Toole (dto_AT_qwsi.net)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2000 - 00:39:02 EEST
Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> actually, it's a good design philosophy (OK, it's not complete
> philosophy, it's a part of it). it applies to programming (and life)
in
> general, not only to that particular example.
>
> are you arguing with it or just correcting the scope/name of it?
The "don't statically allocate arrays" thing is also called the
"zero-one-infinity" principle. It means that you should have zero, one,
or an arbitrary number of things. That is, one is often an acceptable
magic number, but if you have already written the extra code to do
several, there is often (not always) no good reason to limit it.
But don't take this as dogma; it's a rule of thumb to be decided in
each
case rather than summarily without real thought. If it will be
difficult
and would serve no useful purpose, then don't bother. Don't argue that
it is never difficult to make such changes; in the issue at hand, no
one
is just suggesting that the author simply change a #define from 32 to
64. Surely larger code/design changes are at stake if we are even
debating the one/many issue at all.
> I hope you're not suggesting that having arbitrary limits is a good
> thing...
"Arbitrary limits" is way too vague a phrase to either advocate or
denigrate. Which kind of limits do you mean? Where? I was referring to
design, not coding, and I was talking more about *non-numeric* limits.
Of course I do not think 640K memory is a good idea. But all *designs*
must have limits, or you will just never stop designing. UNIX is a
great
design, with the fundamental limitation that it won't iron my shirts.
This is acceptable because doing my laundry is not considered to be
within the scope of OS design.
My point is, we do not need to automatically assume that some software
limitation is stupid/evil/insert word here. Usually there is a reason,
often related to scope and cost/complexity of implementation. Even
judging by the debate here (which did not change my opinion) it is not
yet proved whether or not it is neccessary to have many data types, or
whether it is worth the effort even when it would be useful. No, I do
not advocate "arbitrary limitations", whatever that means. But if you
are on the "one format is fine" side of the debate, it does not seem at
all arbitrary, so there's no philosophical issue.
Examining the issue substantively is more likely to deliver an answer
than is yet another Battle Of The Methodologies.
--
@@@ david o'toole
@@@ dto_AT_gnu.org
@@@ www.gnu.org/software/octal
-- @@@ david o'toole @@@ dto_AT_gnu.org @@@ www.gnu.org/software/octal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 01:14:51 EEST