Re: [Monotone-devel] Current monotone disadvantages

[Magnus Therning]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 01:32:54PM +0200, Nico -telmich- Schottelius wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I am currently comparing tla and monotone. There are imho some
>drawbacks in monotone:
>
>- tla has lesser dependencies (gcc+libc vs. libboost* from monotone)

Is this a problem unless you compile it yourself? How often do you do
that? Remember that most Linux users are _very_ unlikely to ever have to
care about this issue, package management in today's distros is simply
too good (source-based distros included).

As a matter of fact I think the total number of dependencies of the two
tools are quite similar--monotone depends on libraries, tla depends on
external tools.

>- tla is faster (type "tla help" vs. "monotone")

Again, is this a problem? Start-up time of tla is bound to be shorter
since it doesn't contain a whole lot of code--it relies on external
tools (tar, diff, etc...) for most of its file operations--and monotone
does contain a lot of code. Tla keeps things in plain text files (.tgz)
while monotone uses a light-weight database, I am sure this difference
influences speed as well.

IMHO the insteresting comparison would be to put in some really large
project in each of the tools and compare operations on the patches.

[.. snip ..]

>- tla builds much faster (perhaps c vs. c++ or gcc vs. g++ problem)

I'd approach this the same way as your first observation.

>Just some things I noted, perhaps someone has thoughts if and howto fix
>those things.

In short, AFAICS there is nothing to be fixed :-)

/M

-- 
Magnus Therning                    (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
address@hidden
http://magnus.therning.org/

Before a mad scientist goes mad, there's probably a time when he's only
partially mad. And this is when he's going to throw his best parties.
     -- Jack Handey

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature