Re: PicoGUI1 and 2

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 07:02:13PM -0500, Carpman wrote:
> >   
> >   Alternatively, if we instead keep adding features to Pg1, the
> >   inevitable result is bloat. 
> 
> I don't think thats quite true. I admit that it's possible, but if PG1 were 
> given a dynamic loader system, I think we could avoid the bloat in the same 
> way the Linux kernel has. The "It's only there if you want it" approach. I 
> realize that this is the meta-goal of PG2, but I think its feasible in PG1.

It's feasable in that it would be possible to implement.
But then you'd end up with a steadily deteriorating design, as such
features get piled on. pg1's architecture has really hit its limits-
sure it could be fixed up if the networking, rendering, and several
other major subsystems are rewritten, but that's how we came to the pg2
design in the first place. If you're writing all this new code anyway,
might as well do it right and create a design that will last rather than
one build from quick hacks.

--Micah

-- 
"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong."
           -- H.L. Mencken


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf