Re: Computer time -> Developer time -> User time?

From: Frank Kotler (fbkotler_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/22/05 

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:33:40 -0500

Randall Hyde wrote:
>
> "Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote

> > ...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer "productivity" came to
> > the fore: "portable source code", "black box libraries", etc....this has
> > lead to "bloatware"...
>
> No, the thing that has lead to bloatware is the insistence on the user's
> part
> that their software have more features than the "Jones' software".

I don't doubt that this is true, but I don't think it tells
the whole story. I don't think that the reasons Beth gives
provide a complete explanation, either. Sure, "portability"
is going to increase the code size, but to the extent that
it provides "functionallity", and isn't just a "mantra",
that isn't what I'd call "bloat". "Black box libraries"
*can* be bloated, but not necessarily so. There *is* a
difference between libraries, and a "concise" library would
be just as effective in reducing developer time as a
"bloated" one.

It seems to me that to account for the size of "modern
apps", I have to assume that needed/desired features are
being implemented in a "bloated" fashion, and thoughtlessly
pasted onto already "bloated" code. This *may* be
intentional - the "average software consumer" may think that
a program that takes 3 CDs to install is a "better value"
than one that fits on a floppy, even if the functionallity
and "feature set" is identical. I recall reading a post -
long ago - from the author of a "password recovery" program,
intended (nominally) to recover encrypted files to which the
owner had forgotten the password (for some specific word
processor, IIRC). He stated that his algorithm was so fast
that he'd added a delay, so that his customers would think
the program was "doing something".

> Money talks.

Yes, and what the "money spenders" like (apparently) might
not match what someone who actually *knows* something about
software would like. Money talks in another way, too:
advertising. That has to be a factor in what people buy...
or use. If Windows and Linux were compared on the basis of
"users per advertising dollar spent", I'll bet Linux would
look pretty good!

...
> "Sure Word is big and bloated. But that's what people
> want. They won't pay for apps without a lot of features..."

I don't know how big Word actually is, or exactly what
features it has (I understand that, unless told otherwise,
it'll execute any macro it encounters, possibly executing
malicious code - not a feature I'd put on my "must have"
list, but thats a different argument...) So perhaps Word
isn't a good one for me to use as an example... but I'll
take the chance. I don't think anyone is going to write a
"feature for feature clone" of Word in "carefully
hand-crafted assembly". Wouldn't have to be all that
"hand-crafted" - such a thing might be done using the
high-level features of HLA, for example - not the smallest
possible code, but not that bad (it's "not so humble" of me
to have *any* opinion of Randy's code, perhaps... but I do)
Even using C - in the manner that Herbert suggests: *learn*
assembly so you understand what you're asking the processor
to do, *know* your compiler well enough to understand what
code it will emit (Herbert sometimes neglects to mention
this part), and then write "thoughtful" C based on that
knowledge - would do the trick.

"Just suppose" that someone wrote a "feature for feature
clone" of Word - not necessarily squeezing out every byte,
as the "smallest code" contestants do, but with *some*
thought to writing "reasonably concise" code - *some*
thought to avoiding obvious bloat... Any guess - just a
rough estimate - of how the size would compare? I'd bet on
"half" - possibly much less - without even knowing how big
Word is now. Do you think I'm wrong?

Best,
Frank

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----