Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] defending simplicity
From: Erik Steffl (esteffl_AT_pbi.net)
Date: Fri Mar 31 2000 - 01:25:22 EEST
David Olofson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
> > >From: Kai Vehmanen <k_AT_eca.cx>
> > >
> > >1. It's not about genericity, it's about focus.
> > >
> > >Anyone remember the old Unix guide-line - "make your program do
> > >one thing well"? Of course we could go on forever making the
> >
> > There are also some suggestions to not make unnecessary limits to programs.
> > See GNU coding style.
>
> I agree. I have been forced many times to rewrite code that was based
> on a too focused/specialized design. I also have quite a few
...
> It's all about balance between simplicity and flexibility. In most
> cases, it has to be designed in, as it can't be added afterwards.
that's exactly what I meant when I sent differently worded response to
the same e-mail (or to reply to the same e-mail).
you want simplicity and flexibility, not simplicity alone. if you
state the goal of simplicity as the only goal then you'd better do
nothing (since that's the most simple thing to do).
unless the flexibility is designed in from the beginning it is very
hard to add (usually breaks backward compatibility).
data is data - look at the power of unix having everything accesible
as file - you can do cat /dev/dsp > rrr.dsp and then cat rrr.dsp >
/dev/dsp even though when unix was designed nobody (unless crazy) would
think people would do audio processing on their home computers...
usually the generic thing ends to be simpler then specialized thing,
not more complex. and people will use to accomplish things author never
imagined...
I have a gut feeling that java is an example of the 'simplicity above
all' design principle. they wanted to make simpler language than C++ and
look at the stuff they are adding (libraries etc.). it's becoming a
monstrum... (IMO, and possibly wrong)
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 02:22:34 EEST