Hadron Quark wrote:
Paul Bramscher <pfbram_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Mark Kent wrote:
William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
....but us linux users already knew that, didn't we! ;-)
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1246762,00.html
The green agenda is huge now - so I think the whole "drive an upgrade
every 18 months" game is over. The funny thing is that one reason I've
kept my landrovers for so long (I've only ever changed them when they
were stolen!), is that they're very fuel efficient (if you have a
diesel), and last for decades, so there's no landfill problem.
Unfortunately, they've got caught into this whole "chelsea tractor"
debate, which is a shame. Most of the vehicles in that debate are no
more long-lived than a standard car, so there is little positive
argument for them.
Still, linux is great for the environment. How long was it before
Windows was even able to use the idle instructions in processors?
Excellent commentary, and let's take it one step further -- into the
realm of electrons (and how they get shaped). The goals of both the
environmental movement and software engineering (when it is better
practiced) share a lot in common: reduce, reuse, recycle.
Good software engineering reduces bloat. Reuse/recycle are goals of
so-called design patterns and abstraction. To the extent you can
solve the general problem, you can reuse/recycle greater amounts of
code).
The rambling bullshit and the sucking up to Mark Kent would indicate
that this is another one of Roy Schestowitz's piss poor nyms.
No, I'm a real human:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~brams006/index.html
http://paulbramscher.blogspot.com/
The general goal is to write as little throwaway code as possible.
What does that mean? A bit like "the aim is not drop a brick on your own
head"?
I don't normally like to feed trolls, and I can assure that you'll be
added to my filters after this response. But you're certainly welcome
to google up on software engineering, design patterns, abstraction, etc.
You can contrast these principled approaches to writing code with
phrases such as "total rewrite" I often hear in the windows camp. Then
again, who knows? Maybe they actually do recycle 90% of their previous
code base. If so, they're sure not passing on that savings to the
consumer, now are they? So which is it -- M$ sensibly recycles but
fails to pass on the savings, or M$ writes throwaway code and that's why
Vista costs so much.
You decide, buddy.
|
|
