On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am Sonntag 18 September 2011, 09:58:10 schrieb Michael Mol: >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann >> >> <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > Am Sonntag 18 September 2011, 15:19:29 schrieb pk: >> > again, if it you say 'it must be bad because there is a bug in it' you >> > can disregard all software ever written. >> >> This is why, when designing systems, you want as little complexity as >> possible; the greater the complexity, the greater the incidence of >> bugs. Yes, it's unavoidable that there are bugs, but lower bug counts >> are better. >> >> (Not making a specific argument against D-Bus here, just the rhetorical >> device.) > > yeah and if you simplified your system enough it is so hard to use it is not > worth the time you waste on it.
And if you solve every problem with another layer or patch to mask complexity cases, you haven't usually eliminated edge cases, you've only moved them to somewhere discounted or (worse) undiscovered. You *certainly* haven't reduced system complexity. > > Every problem can be solved by another layer of abstraction "Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of indirection, but that usually will create another problem." - David Wheeler -- :wq
