Fine, don't waste your time responding. Go do better things.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> wrote: > It makes little sense to me to put time into convincing a random non-Linden. > And since LL is going to ignore the whole discussion/idea anyway, I have > better things to do. Sorry. > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Lear Cale wrote: >> If it were a simple change, I'm sure it would be considered. What >> you're suggesting sounds like would require a massive rewrite. I >> agree that a dynamic system would be much better, easier to code and >> less wasted memory. But without detailed knowledge of how the system >> is currently implemented, it's not possible to assess how difficult it >> would be to change from a fixed allocation scheme to a dynamic one. >> >> It's easy to ask for changes without regard to the cost. LL needs to >> consider the cost, in terms of effort and risk. Can you do a >> cost/benefit analysis on your suggestion? Or are you just being >> immovably stubborn? > > There would be a one-time cost to write it. I doubt that needed > four to eight times the amount of physical RAM weight up against > any (possible) maintenance cost (which I estimate to be neglectable > in the first place). > >> Lear > > -- > Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> > _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
