Content deleted Content added
→Slim Binaries: raughly -> roughly |
rply Zarutian |
||
Line 79:
Should slim binaries (roughly: dictionary encoded abstract syntax tree of code) get mentioned in the article? See [http://wiki.tcl.tk/Slim+Binaries/] for a little further info on slim binaries.
[[User:Zarutian|Zarutian]] 01:06, 22 june 2005 (UTC)
:Bad link there. The argument seems to be something along these, not so explicit, lines. Snmall binaries have, all other things being equal, have fewer interdependencies and so lower complication and so fewer opportunities for bugs. Well, not intended ones anyway. Which is the general Wirthian point. True, it's possible to have slim binaries which have pathologically interconnected everything, but that's the situation several sigmas out, the unlikely case. After all, not even close to all C programs qualify for the Obfuscated contest.
:It's a fair comment to make in WP, though hard to quite explain clearly. With all the refs and such WP tries to insist on. It's a craftsmanlike point, and equally hard to understand. In Pirsig's terms, it's a kind of 'quality'. That took a writer of Pirsig's quality to describe, I don't have such hopes of my own prose... [[User:Ww|ww]] 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
| |||