Bloat costs

[Craig Pratt]

In article <8M_3OF3 at xds13.ferranti.com> peter at ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <23473 at uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> bp at beach.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Pane) writes:
>> If such a mindset exists, it is not because of the abundance of powerful
>> hardware.  It is because CS majors are taught to build robust, maintainable,
>> and therefore seemingly elegant programs rather than compact and clever
>> programs.  If we get used to writing ruthlessly brilliant programs,
>> we'll only add to the "software crisis" when we graduate.
> (some of Peter's stuff deleted)
>> Finally, note that large and "inefficient" programs advance the state
>> of the art in software more often than small and clever programs.
>> Consider X Windows.
>
>Yes, lets.
>
>> It is a huge system designed for flexibility
>> rather than efficiency, and it requires significant hardware power,
>> but it has revolutionized the way we use computers.
>
>Actually, it was the Xerox Star and the Apple Macintosh that did that.
>Machines with a fraction of the resources of the typical X workstation.

There are actually a few different revolutions going on and I don't think
the one sparked by Xerox/Apple is the most important.  I think the most
revolutionary idea was sparked by Unix.  It's a bit more philosophical
than technical.  As I understand it, the idea behind Multics and, subse-
quently, Unix was to build an OS which does almost everything without
taking into consideration the performance or cost of its use.  Notice that
X windows is similiar in that respect:  it is huge, powerful and flexable.
Xwindows takes no shortcuts to do its thing.  Another example would have
to be Ada.  Ada is almost certainly one of the most powerful languages
in existance.  But, like Unix and Xwindows, it is not very fast or 
efficient.

So, why do these packages exist?  Well, it's not difficult to see that
the speed and power of computer hardware increases at an amazing rate.
The people behind these packages were simply smart enough to realize this
and they wrote their requirements accordingly.  Sure, these packages are/
were slow when they were initially realeased, but by the time the hard-
ware caught up, these packages are/will be standards.  If you ask me,
standards are what is needed most in the computer industry.  Far too
often things work in the opposite direction.  Packages and OS's are written
to work great on the current hardware but are quickly surpassed by new
hardware and the software that runs on the new hardware.  It is very dif-
ficult for standards to exist in this environment.

Minix seems to fit within the smart software category as well.  Sure, an
OS written in assembler would be faster, but if it were written in 
assembley, it would be many times more difficult to port and it would 
exist on far fewer platforms.  Subsequently, you would see far less
support and software written for Minix.  This, of course, would diminish 
its usefulness greatly.

I hope the kind of trend inspired by these packages continues.  It only
makes sense.  Sure, it's kind of fun to see how efficient you can write a 
certain loop or whatever but if it breaks the rules, you're going to have a 
LOT of fun when it comes time to port it.  Unfortunately, in the past,
education and industry have been in conflict on this philosophy.  Xwindows
would not have been a real marketable product when it was released.  Now
that its a standard and the machines are getting faster, companies are
realizing that there is a market.

The setting of standards is often a necessary but unprofitable step in
software evolution.  Hopefully, this will change as and if companies start
to consider the long term and not just the sort-term profits.  I applaud
and admire the people behind the above mentioned products.  They are true
visionaries.

This topic is more related to software engineering and doesn't really
belong in the Minix group.  I guess this isn't the first time this has
happened, though. :^>

Craig

>-- 
>`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180.  <peter at ficc.ferranti.com>
> 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <peter at sugar.hackercorp.com>
>@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.

--
   / Craig Pratt                          / Craig.Pratt at msu3.oscs.montana.edu /
  / Montana State University, Bozeman MT / icsu8053 at caesar.cs.montana.edu    /
 /~~~~~~ " My after-life is sooo boring!  If I have to sing koombia one ~~~~/
/_________more time... " - Heather #1, "Heathers" _________________________/