That this has apparently passed so many people posting here by is quite breathtaking.

Or perhaps it is just me?

Second, how much disk space does 1,200 lines of code make to the binary anyway? As a consumer with a 100+ GB hard drive and cable internet connection, I would prefer you spent the time developing features and trimming actual heap space used by your app. I couldn’t care less about the static binary size. Hopefully you’ll just use an order file, which is a lot simpler, and keeps most of this code from ever being paged in. If your not already familiar with them see ‘man ld’ and read the -order_file section for information about order files.

All in all, it’s an optimization for the customizer, and de-optimization for the developer. You’re time is really important to us customers, we want you to spend it on great features. I bet there was a better way to spend that time that would have yielded even better results.

Oh, relly? I thought it was about developers “not having time” to optimize their code sufficiently.”

No, it’s about developers not having time to reduce the line count of 3rd party code that they use for the sole reason that they don’t want to have to deal with writing said code themselves.

Any more of that and my head will explode. I don’t know what you’re saying about line count. Sure he does that. But look at the reduction in computation, the reduced looping, reduced memory usage.

Nobody is arguing that fewer lines of code is a bad thing, but only when doing the same thing.

???

I could reduce OS X to a few 100 lines of code

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize we were dealing with a genius here.

What has been done on CTGradient isn’t simple optimisation and reduction of code, but removal of functionality to make it more specialised to a single application.

NO. Read the code. If you understand C, you can plainly see that the code will run faster and use less memory. The only logical explanatations for your lack of understanding are a) you didn’t read the code or b) you don’t know C.

I suggest you go away and release some software and come back when you have the experience to back up your argument.

Ha! How old are you, boy?

No, it’s about developers not having time to reduce the line count of 3rd party code that they use for the sole reason that they don’t want to have to deal with writing said code themselves.

“How’s that a difference in philosophy? Anyway, CGShading directly gets it in one file rather than two for CTGradient. And Wil’s saying that having fewer lines of code is a good thing too.”

Nobody is arguing that fewer lines of code is a bad thing, but only when doing the same thing. I could reduce OS X to a few 100 lines of code but it wouldn’t do anything. What has been done on CTGradient isn’t simple optimisation and reduction of code, but removal of functionality to make it more specialised to a single application.

“Do you still not get it? Read it once more. Read what he says.”

Yes, I have read it and understood it and as someone who writes, supports, markets and tests their own applications I understand the context under which Wil says you should optimise. For example, I recently went an optimised my syntax highlighting class in one of my applications. I managed to significantly reduce the number of lines of code, increase readability and speed it up. Did I do this because it took my fancy? No, I did it because it was seriously slowing down my application. Therefore it is was a priority. I suggest you go away and release some software and come back when you have the experience to back up your argument.

• CTGradient and CGShading both take a similar amount of time and “effort” to implement.
• Using CGShading directly has great performance benefits over CTGradient.

So the logical choice would be to use CGShading, no?

The argument was against developers being bad if they don’t remove all the code they don’t need from a 3rd party class.

Oh, relly? I thought it was about developers “not having time” to optimize their code sufficiently.

And note the difference in optimisation philosophies behind the two posts: “And having fewer files in your project is EVEN BETTER than having fewer lines of code in a single file.”

How’s that a difference in philosophy? Anyway, CGShading directly gets it in one file rather than two for CTGradient. And Wil’s saying that having fewer lines of code is a good thing too.

And yes, what he says and what he says while doing it are identical. They are not however identical to this post. Does this post take someone’s specific code that uses images and replace it with general code that doesn’t use images but does it all in code? No.

Do you still not get it? Read it once more. Read what he says.

And note the difference in optimisation philosophies behind the two posts: “And having fewer files in your project is EVEN BETTER than having fewer lines of code in a single file.”

That’s why you’re still a padawan.