Re: memory usage issues in PEAR 1.4.0

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:52:11 -0500, Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote: > Alan Knowles wrote: > > > I probably wont go on much further on this, but It is a concern that I > > have heard from a few other developers, that the installer is growing > > very fat, however I havent got the time or inclination to dig into > > pear's code to understand the details or even fix it. > > > > I can understand how this has happened, a considerable amount of > > features have been added, but like all projects that evolve like this, > > the point where you have practically completed the main task is where > > the real challenges lie, optimizing, pruning etc (or throwing out the > > bathwater, as I've done before..). The installer looks like it has got > > to that stage now, but It would be conforting now, to hear a glowing > > ethusiasum to attack the problem of bloat as much as the problem of > > missing features. many of which sound essential, but may in hindsight > > be regarded as a non critical feature added to the core... > > I have heard absolutely nothing from any developers who wish to apply > their energies to writing any code for the installer. Many have > offered, but none have any real interest in doing work. > > If you want "glowing enthusiasm" from me, you need to do better than > this. I've spent fully a year and a half of my time taking away from > other projects I work plus my regular life. To now hear "oh, just > delete most of the work you did" is never - EVER - going to elicit any > enthusiasm, glowing or stinking. > > I'm happy to withdraw completely - and I am totally serious - from the > PEAR project and release my work through my own separate outlet so that > those who are penny-pinchers with memory can be happy. > I appreciate your work, Greg, immensely. The additional features added and the unit tests are wonderful and will make PEAR much more robust and usable. Alan: You may have wanted to phrase things a little better. To intimate that perhaps we should "throw out the bathwater" on the work he's done for more than the past year *ALONE* is simply not appropriate. I can understand Greg's anger when you say that the features he's been sweating blood over should just be pruned. Where was all of this back when Greg was working on the project? There was virtually no discussion about much of the new features and the code while Greg was working on it. Dont get me wrong, you do have a point, Alan, but coming in at the end of the pipe, when things are nearly ready to be released, and offering some thoughts without any real work is destructive. First you complete the code (and make it work correctly) and then you optimize. It you want it optimized, I suggest you dig into the code and figure out where it can be optimized. Don't just suggest cuttong features, figure out if things can be lazy loaded, profile the code, find the resource hogs, and find a way to reduce their memory consumption. Greg has worked on all this for quite a bit of time he put things where they are for a reason. If you want to help, pony up. Don't just say that we should trim things. -- Justin Patrin