From: Naoki S. <n-s...@ic...> - 2000-12-14 14:15:47
|
Alexander> Let's talk about KLEMM_43 (tables.c, see ping-pong patches #3): He Alexander> want's wo make small changes, step after step. But Mark didn't likes it. Alexander> If it didn't improves speed/quality, it shouldn't get committed (that's Alexander> how I understand Mark). But it's a lot harder to find bugs after a huge Alexander> megapatch than to find bugs which slept in with a small modification. Alexander> Alexander> Sometimes you need first a "cosmetic change" (I'm talking about Alexander> refactoring) to be able make a good functional improvement. And I didn't Alexander> like mixing functional improvements with cosmetic changes. That's because I and perhaps Mark don't trust what Frank does. If what he does really improve speed or quality, I don't oppose. But, 90% of his work is pointless change of code to satisfy his preference. If his improvement really requires many cosmetic changes, I think he should do that on his branch and show they are really needed. I don't want cosmetic changes without quality/speed improvement. If almost all people like his changes, there is no problem. But actually, only few people like that and the problem is that he makes changes without confirming other people's opinion. His write access is already removed many times, but he seems not be sorry. He's repeating same things. He should rethink why his write access is removed many times. Alexander> At the first look, they look strange/ugly. But if I look a little bit Alexander> longer at it, it is just syntactic sugar, it's "switch () {case ...}" Alexander> for strings. The names of those macros aren't the best ones, but it's Alexander> not the first time I see such macros. I can't say "I have problems" or Alexander> "I have no problems" with them. I can't understand what you are saying. I think introducing those macros doesn't improve anything. The original code already works well, and there is no reason to improve it further. The only reason why he changed the code is he doesn't like it. With such changes, the author of original code have to understand the new code. So, I think this is quite selfish and interfering. You also thought first that this code is ugly, and I still think it's ugly. If he isn't aware that people other than him may think his code is ugly, it's clearly problem. If he is aware of that, why didn't he confirm other people's opinion? Alexander> Do we talk about his style or about the quality of his code? Mainly, I'm talking about his style, but I think quality of his code is also quite bad. Alexander> I didn't like his style entirely, but there isn't a style which Alexander> satisfies everyone. I think almost all authors of the original code don't want their code changed only to satisfy other very few person's preference. If this is frequently done, at least I lose my interest to improve code. Alexander> He isn't diplomatic, and I didn't want to have him as a coworker, but he Alexander> does good work. I've never thought his work is good. Alexander> Are you talking about "%" and "*"? If yes: Yes, I like the additional Alexander> information I get out of this histogram, I didn't like the "%" Alexander> character, but I like the information he represents. "%" and "*" are not so bad, but I dislike that the histogram now gets longer to the width of window, and displaying style of percent. At first, he changed that meaning of ratio without confirming other person's opinion, and Mark reverted. I also think that he should be sorry for this. Alexander> BTW.: What does functional improvement mean for you? Is less memory Alexander> usage while producing the same quality in the same amount of time a Alexander> functional improvement for you? I think memory consumption of current lame is not so bad. I don't think their is strong need to reduce mamory consumption of lame. -- Naoki Shibata e-mail: shi...@ge... |