On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:02:15PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Of course as you already know emacs includes so many thing unrelated to
> editing that anyone using it has already decided they don't mind the
> bloat. *OT* Really is there any argument that a psychoanalysis program
> in an editor is not bloat?
Yes. It's the same as the argument that "a psychoanalysis program in
an editor" is not a gerbil, nameably that there's no apparent
connection.
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
software bloat
<jargon, abuse> The result of adding new features to a program
or system to the point where the benefit of the new features
is outweighed by the extra resources consumed ({RAM}, disk
space or performance) and complexity of use. Software bloat
is an instance of Parkinson's Law: resource requirements
expand to consume the resources available. Causes of software
bloat include {second-system effect} and {creeping
featuritis}. Commonly cited examples include Unix's "{ls}(1)"
command, the {X Window System}, {BSD}, {Missed'em-five},
{OS/2} and any {Microsoft} product.
[{Jargon File}]
(1995-10-16)
In order to demonstrate that something is "bloat", you have to
demonstrate that including it causes a problem which outweighs the
advantage.
Note that you have to do this in an environment where .5Gb of memory,
120Gb hard drives, and 1GHz processors are relatively common, and so
losing a few hundred kb of storage is not likely to bother you
much. Certainly doesn't bother me.
[As a side note, this implies that "bloat" is a context-sensitive
term, and not an absolute - much like "fast".]
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpTJMRnYqVvm.pgp
Description: PGP signature