On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:58:28AM +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote: > module registration/compilation handled by ifdef. Many applications suck > because they introduce lots of bloat and so does mutt. But there's no > need to. The mutt binary on my system is about 650kB. Removing mbox would save, what? Maybe 50kB? Are you really *that* short of space? If you want to remove bloat and simplify the code, target some of the most esoteric configuration options, not the mailbox drivers. Besides, the odds of mbox actually dying are even more remote than the chances of mutt achieving global dominance. ;-) > But the point is that making it work better takes lots of time because of > some missing internal abstraction. Doing a redesign also has the > consequence that in the future can be trivially made suck even less > because changing something is easy due the good design. It's a nice idea; feel free to go ahead with it. I still maintain that what will actually happen is a complete loss of any remaining forward motion with mutt while time is spent designing, writing, debugging, rewriting, rewriting *again* because you missed something, until by the time the new one comes out, nobody will care any more. All for the sake of a handful of features which I'm fairly confident in saying most people will never, ever use. I could be wrong. It's very definitely be known to happen. If you're confident your approach is the right one, take it, do it, make it work, get it used by more than a handful of people, and I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong. -- Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature