From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4ef97ffa3f0bbb8004fb870726536e2c@collyer.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 2006 17:53:41 -0700
From: geoff@collyer.net
In-Reply-To: <20060608015831.GA3517@ionkov.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5e85c9be-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

The argument `if you don't like it, don't use it', is how PL/I, C++,
gcc and Linux got to be huge.  The fallacy in the argument is that
adding complexity and bulk to anything makes it harder to comprehend
and slower to use (not to mention less elegant).  Manuals get thicker,
it's harder to find what you want and sometimes you have to learn
about things just to avoid them successfully.  There get to be
unintended interactions between the parts.  In software, layers (thus
slowness and bulk) tend to accrete.  Then there are hacks (e.g.,
shared libraries) to try to ameliorate the bloat.

Is Linux really any better for having Gnome *and* KDE, both layered on
top of X libraries, and a raft of duelling applications written for
each?  It reminds me of the Unix Window System Wars of the 1980's,
when people thought (or pretended to) that it *really mattered* if
your windows had drop shadows or 3D effects on the corners.