Ware Ware Wizardjin

[Tom Reingold]

In article <9104072151.AA28702 at gaia> kemnitz at POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU
(Greg Kemnitz) writes:

$ [...]
$ But it appears that it is easier to wait for fast machines rather than
$ to design standard graphics protocols that aren't bloated, politically
$ acceptable masses.  Also, it appears that the de facto trend in
$ industry is to hope hardware improves fast enough to let poorly written
$ software run well rather than writing software properly, and it is hard
$ to argue that this strategy has been a complete failure, even if it is
$ a sloppy approach.

Being a detail-minded programmer, I really hate to agree with this, but
I am finding it's sometimes correct.  I love properly designed programs
and I hate poorly designed and implemented programs, but I now work on
a product that suffered the design flaws recently covered in this
thread.  I am beginning to see that although the excess size and
duplicated function cost the user, the speed at getting the user what
he wants is also a major factor.  If he doesn't get what he wants
*soon*, even if improperly done, it may be a lost opportunity.

We hope to take some time and fix things up in our product.  If we
don't manage to find the time, it will be because we will be doing a
major rewrite anyway.  The major rewrite will be spawned by the need to
add large amounts of functionality, making our current product
obsolete.  If it's obsolete, tightening it up would be futile.  In
doing the rewrite, we hope to learn from our mistakes of excess size
and redundancy.
--
        Tom Reingold
        tr at samadams.princeton.edu  OR  ...!princeton!samadams!tr
        "Warning: Do not drive with Auto-Shade in place.  Remove
        from windshield before starting ignition."