John Smith [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-07-12 🗒️ Summary of this message: A suggestion to ...

📅 Original date posted:2011-07-12
🗒️ Summary of this message: A suggestion to rewrite Bitcoin's codebase is met with some disagreement, with some suggesting refactoring instead of a complete rewrite. Boost is defended as a nonstandard dependency.
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:

> > My overall suggestion is to begin a complete rewrite, inspired by the old
> > code rather than moving a lot of "known to be somehow functional" around.
>
> This essay is old but still relevant, I think:
>
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
>


+1

More code documentation would be helpful, and so would making the interfaces
more understandable/readable, and getting rid of the manual locking
(especially in client code!), but I don't see how that would warrant a
complete rewrite.

Some refactoring would be much safer than trying to reproduce every nook and
cranny in a rewrite.

re:4) I also don't see why boost would be a 'nonstandard dependency'. From
what I understand, a large part of the new C++0x standard is derived from
boost. Also C++ compilers are getting faster and more smart all the time, so
I absolutely don't see "build speed" as a goal.

re:6) I've already submitted a few pull requests that replace hardcoded
magic values with constants. Moving the constants to a config file is not
needed IMO because the end-user doesn't need to change them.

JS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110712/ba5c759d/attachment.html>;