Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7627 comp.unix.internals:1193 comp.misc:10698
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.internals,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software Obesity (was Re: Jargon file v2.1.5)
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.213207.15650@odi.com>
Date: 3 Dec 90 21:32:07 GMT
References: <1990Nov30.172512.5282@sctc.com> <O7Y77DB@xds13.ferranti.com> <PST.90Dec1131440@ack.Stanford.EDU> <1990Dec2.202402.21977@decuac.dec.com>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 15
In-Reply-To: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com's message of 2 Dec 90 20:24:02 GMT

In article <1990Dec2.202402.21977@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
						I'd love to see some data
   about the aggregate usefulness of software *within its problem area*
   as features are added.

It depends on what your perception of the problem area is.  The new
features aren't really useless.  They only seem useless because they
are not useful to you; they're useful to someone else.

Yes, it's true that software should be built so that features useful
to someone else wouldn't slow down performance for those who do not
use them.  Unfortunately, it's usually harder to do this than it seems
as if it ought to be.  But also many people don't try hard enough, and
could and should do a better job.  Several companies have suffered
in the marketplace for doing this badly.