On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 01:23, Martin Vermeer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 07:35:07AM +1030, Darren Freeman spake thusly: > > > On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 00:27, John Levon wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 10:51:42PM +1030, Darren Freeman wrote: > > ... > > > > > So I would say this: apart from obvious shortening of bloated symbols, > > > > leave them readable (and compatible!). As long as gzipping becomes the > > > > standard, that's a good thing since it's a tiny penalty for a large > > > > gain. > > > > > > Frankly, I consider it a hack. > > > > Why? Are we concerned with the size of a gzipped file or the original?? > > > > What is the goal? > > > > The representation of the user's data is the goal, as I see it. > > Please consider that even if we store the tables in gzipped form, they > will be unzipped before use and handling, even if only in memory. This > makes the unzipped file size relevant from a performance viewpoint. I > could think of other situations where we want the unzipped version > actually on disk. Having the option of something that is both legible > and compact -- as we have had so far with LyX -- is a strong point > that I am loath to give up without a fight :-)
I didn't say make it *more* bloated. I just meant that if we have an hour a day to code improvements to the file format (preferably in time for 1.3.0 which would only happen if the change is small enough to slip through the feature freeze), then we need to look at where the biggest gain is. And I say it's adding the ability to compress the file which shaves off most of the bytes. > > Create a human readable form and then compress it into a water tight > > format. This format can then be manipulated using standard tools, like > > gunzip and a text editor. What could be more elegant? > > It's fine... but not as a substitute for doing a reasonably effective > job in the first place (yes, even if that would slightly inflate the .gz > file!). Remember also that a needlessly bloated text file format is a > pain to work with, or even just read, in an editor too. The format we have right at this very moment in time is already working. It's not about putting in more effort to make it more bloat^H^H^H^H^Hreadable, it's about leaving it alone until compression works, which doesn't sound that hard to be honest. <not an offer to code> > I don't quite buy this class of arguments that Moore's Law will > obsolesce the art of efficient coding... Hey I had to give up my assembler in favour of a C compiler. Then I realised that not every cycle counts when a billion of them happen every second. > > > john > > > > Have fun, and merry xmas, > > Darren > > A Happy Newyear! Agreed. A happy new year. ;) > Martin Darren
