Hi, * Paul Walker [05-07-15 12:27:24 +0100] wrote:
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?
Of course not. By the above sentence I didn't want to say that the primary motivation is space though this is an issue as the memory footprint is. Currently, there're many compile-time options allowing people to invidually choose the features they really want if they disagree with the stock configuration of their prefered system. For the storage backends there's no such decission possible because of bad design which needs to be changed so that in the end it's a gimmick that one can save space by not compiling mbox support. Primarily it's just an ordinary option to configure which can implemented completely without ifdefs throughout the application. Why compile mbox support if you're sure you don't need it?
If you want to remove bloat and simplify the code, target some of the most esoteric configuration options, not the mailbox drivers.
The problem is that somebody out there might already rely on it so that doing so requires some care and time for people to note that they have to raise their voice to point out what option they love why.
But as said, cleaning up the design to enable people to compile without certain storage backends _and_ removing superflous features are both tiny steps into the right direction.
bye, Rocco -- :wq!