Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL]
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 03:25:50AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> You're right--it's usually easier to scrap the idea at this point.
> Actually optimizing a program for smallness shouldn't be necessary:
> you shouldn't need to because it should already be optimized in the
> three steps before you type a line of code: flowcharting, dry code,
> and simulated runs.
does anyone actually do flowcharts these days?
i thought most people code in outline form - like pseudocode, except
that it's syntactically valid code...just that the details of the
functions you define aren't filled in yet. still allows you to get the
structure and logic of the program right without spending (wasting?) a
lot of time and paper on flowcharts.
> > I don't know whether it is better to base the Pico replacement on
> > Emacs, or something else, or start from scratch. But whichever
> > way it is done, I think people should focus on getting it working
> > properly with as little time as possible, to move on to another
> > project--not on optimizing it for size.
>
> Let's let the people doing it worry about what they're going to focus
> on. If you want to make a pico-mask for EMACS, I doubt anyone'll stop
> you or tell you where your focus should be.
OTOH, it's unlikely that any pico users would actually use emacs
masquerading as pico :)
pico might be the most useless text editor in the world (or possibly the
2nd...ae is a hot contender for the title), but it IS small and it is
fast, and it is simple.
personally, i recommend joe or jed to people who want a simple but
semi-reasonable editor, vi to anyone who wants a powerful editor without
bloat, and emacs or xemacs to anyone who wants an editing *environment*.
craig
ps: i'm pretty sure that people who can only use something as simple as
pico shouldn't be allowed to use computers. not without drool protectors
for the keyboard, anyway :)
--
craig sanders
Reply to: