Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: The GLX Rewrite Lands For X.Org Server 1.15

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    93

    Default Even with this X.org is very bloated!

    Just compare X.org vs Wayland, Weston vs Fluxbox (LXDE is just to illustrate a complete lean desktop ;-) )
    X.org is increadible bigger than Wayland, but Fluxbox is near the same as Weston.

    Software Lines of code
    X.org 2,265,231
    Wayland 13,180
    Weston 59,585
    FluxBox 52,790
    LXDE 116,459




    Sources:
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/x
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/wayland
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/weston
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/fluxbox
    https://www.ohloh.net/p/lxde

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rudregues View Post
    Just compare X.org vs Wayland, Weston vs Fluxbox (LXDE is just to illustrate a complete lean desktop ;-) ).
    X.org is increadible bigger than Wayland, but Fluxbox is near the same as Weston.
    Note that the X linecount includes a lot of drivers and applications, not just X itself :

    https://www.ohloh.net/p/x/enlistments?page=1

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    341

    Default Lines of code is pointless

    Lines of code is a pointless measurement.

    Just because I can write the same thing in a few less lines means nothing unless there is measurement of performance gain.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    93

    Default

    I must agree with you bridgman, I didn't even noted that these Loc of X.org are mixed with other software.

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrl View Post
    Lines of code is a pointless measurement.

    Just because I can write the same thing in a few less lines means nothing unless there is measurement of performance gain.
    Well, the programmers of Wayland and X.org are basically the same. So, the same people would use many more lines of code in one program and another for doing the same?
    If I wrote a program to do something in a certain way and if I do another program other way using C it's very hard to me to admit one will have 500 Loc and the other 5,000,000,000. Of course I can be wrong, but it's my opinion.

    Anyway, it's very good to see X being improved and Wayland growing as an alternative to X.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrl View Post
    Lines of code is a pointless measurement.
    What? No it isn't. Where do you get that idea?

    It's far from pointless, as long as you understand what it actually measures.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrl View Post
    Lines of code is a pointless measurement.

    Just because I can write the same thing in a few less lines means nothing unless there is measurement of performance gain.
    Less lines of code means easier to understand code, and that means easier to maintain code. It has nothing to do with performance, although it usually helps indirectly (if it's easier to understand, it will probably be easier to optimize, though it is not always that way, and it might also improve cache efficiency, but again, it is not always the case).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Less lines of code means easier to understand code, and that means easier to maintain code.
    Not necessarily, for my personal projects I'll purposefully write verbose and literal code just so that when i go back and look at it I can follow it in a more "step by step" manner. Sure I could combine steps into single lines with nesting or just using different operators but If I don't look at the code for a year and totally forget what I was thinking, I want to be able to just LOOK at the code (in combo with the comments) and work it all back out.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Not necessarily, for my personal projects I'll purposefully write verbose and literal code just so that when i go back and look at it I can follow it in a more "step by step" manner. Sure I could combine steps into single lines with nesting or just using different operators but If I don't look at the code for a year and totally forget what I was thinking, I want to be able to just LOOK at the code (in combo with the comments) and work it all back out.
    But you don't have 5 different implementations of the same functionality sitting in your code, now do you

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    But you don't have 5 different implementations of the same functionality sitting in your code, now do you
    Not purposefully, no :P

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •