Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, C Y wrote:

| > From my perspective, a replacement of noweb with a noticeable
| > increase of build time is non tolerable.  I value developer time as
| > much as  I value user time.  Longer build time means few build
| cycles.
| > 
| > I'll seen the slippery slope in GCC come the point where even people
| > who previously supported increase time will now ferociously fight any
| > measurable increase, be it 0.5%.
| 
| I take it the concern is a lot of small slowdowns can mean a noticeably
| large slowdown when added up?

Oh yes.  If you google for "GCC" and "compile-time performance", you
should have longish threads.  I know of at least one coorporate who
takes that issue very seriously (long before it became an issue for
the whole community) and was willing to pay contractors to improve the 
compile-time performance.

| > So my conclusion is:
| > 
| >   (1) ideally, we should not increase build time.  And if we must,
| >       then there must be clearly identified benefits that we believe
| >       are good for the long term.
| 
| Would increased power for chunk syntax be (in your opinion) sufficient
| justification for a slower build?  To me the question is not an obvious
| one, and I was hoping some more people would weigh in on this point.

Indeed, it is not obvious.  Last time we talked about it, the increase
was oder of magnitude.  Do you have new data?

Do you have a summary of what is gained, what is lost?
I've heard people upset because their development environements are
broken.

[...]

| >   (2) we should not gratuitously break development environments.
| 
| You mean things like Emacs modes?

Yes -- I think that is part of people's concern...

[...]

| > | It's more a question of "what do I do to best forward the goal of
| > | no one having to come back and do this again later?"  cl-web was
| > | apparently a failure in that respect - my current goal is to
| > | understand what needs to be done to ensure it doesn't happen again.
| > 
| > We are dealing with computers and software, not abstract theorems :-)
| 
| Exactly - I want to get to the part where we ARE dealing with abstract
| theorems, and in the computer too ;-).  Until we get this set up
| properly, we can't.

My point is that the fundamental technology that drives the computers
is moving fast, and you're aiming at a moving target.  That is unlike the
fundmental technology behind abstract algebra.