[arch-general] replacement for clyde

[tuxce]

Le 19 août 2011 18:06, Cédric Girard <girard.cedric at gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I agree that your arguments have a valid point of view all the way up
>> to this point where you lost me.
>> For me, "lack of quality" is in the same category as "lack of quality
>> impacts speed"
>> For example, lets have the same badly written algorithm compiled with
>> no optimization and the other being compiled with -O999 ZOMG!!
>> It doesn't matter to me if one ruins your system faster, it will still
>> do the same thing.
>> This is why I think the "lack of quality impacts speed" issue being
>> completely different from "lack of quality" is invalid.
>
>
> I will try to explain my point with an example. Take a bash script which
> needs to find some string into a file.
> Let's do this the ugly way:
> echo $(cat $file) | grep -q "%PROVIDES%.*$1"
> Let's do this the correct way:
> grep -q "%PROVIDES%.*$1" $file
>

This is a wrong example :) Those commands are different.
"echo $(cat file) |" provides an input without "\n"

> If both take the same resources to execute, you may say: OK, the first one
> is ugly but I don't really care because both give the same result and there
> is no performance impact.
> Now, if the first one appears to be way slower than the second one, the
> situation is different because not only it impacts the developer (complex
> code hard to understand and maintains) but it also impacts the end user
> (have to wait longer than needed).
>
> This example was one real example taken from yaourt at the state it was in
> January 2010. There is nothing ugly in the way it will not work or break
> your system. It was just ugly and slow code.
>
> --
> Cédric Girard
>