On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:41:03PM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:34:59 +0200 > Sylvain BERTRAND <sylw...@legeek.net> wrote: > >> I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them >> "irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :) >> >> This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too >> annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile >> to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build. > > Reading your makefiles I understand why you hate the concept. You can > write one in less than 20 LOC.
Great! Finally! Thanks! The metric of LOC alone is not sufficient in many cases to define a suckless project. Of course this metric must not be overshadowed, but in no way is sufficient. Let me give a "extreme"/simplistic example to lead you to why: ---- Coder A wrote a program using *insert your GIGABLOAT written in C here* which does function Z in 10 LOC. Coder B wrote a program using C which does function Z in 100 LOC. The suckless program is from coder B because the whole software stack of code is way more technically costly. ---- What I mean: it's totally suckless to write more LOC if it reduces the technical cost of the overall software stack (SDKs included!). In the reality, each case is different, and people won't draw their line in the same place. The important thing is not to overshadow the global technical cost. -- Sylvain
