From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3D71DABB-0EFE-4A27-B6AD-73B59B2BFB80@telus.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Paul Lalonde Subject: Re: [9fans] gnupg or pgp for plan9? Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:07:42 -0800 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 24a09f44-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 -----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-----