Re: [9fans] gnupg or pgp for plan9?

[Paul Lalonde <plalonde@telus.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 28-Mar-06, at 9:29 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:

>> ( gnupg and those
>> tools are really big,
>
> why are they so big?
> silly question, probably.
>

Some years ago I had to drop a new graphics engine into an existing
code base.  Their performance was hideous, using up something
ridiculous like 30% of the frame time between the calls to "draw
player" and the call into my library.

A little excavation found 15 (yes, 15) layers of inheritance goop -
everything from a player face manager to an rendering object manager,
to a directX-look-alike graphics layer that had all been glommed into
the code base over only 3 years of evolution.  One sharp razor later
it was down to (a still unacceptable) 5%, with the rest back for
graphics submission.  Most of the code goop was stuff that could have
been done statically once if not for trying to make it fit the
previous layer of wrappers.

It happens because engineers are too lazy or scared to try to
understand the code they are modifying, and a layer seems safer.  My
case was 3 years of 2 code teams.  Imagine 10 years of open-source-
like distributed development :-(

Paul

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEKevvpJeHo/Fbu1wRAgv9AKCij0PwgoGL9uf669VmTtI+q/x40ACglJZd
NlTYcfCSPrhxIRozt6/r820=
=/kax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----