Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbd1984 | Hacker News Reader

cbd1984

So... is bloat extra features, extra code, or extra resource usage? Is it bloated if you have the same features in fewer lines, or fewer lines with more resource usage?

It's almost as if bloat is a meaningless snarl term with a mostly illusory definition beyond "bad".

View on HN

If they're "extra" then they are unnecessary; I define code bloat strictly as redundant code inside the source tree.

Redundant code has performance and resource ramifications: Programs that are bigger load slower (more bytes to pull from disk) and run slower (more trips in and out of cache memory).

Redundant code also has other ramifications: Two modules in the same source tree may attempt similar (or identical) algorithms and miss an opportunity to consolidate. One of them might hide a bug, where the other code path was executed more frequently and the bug fixed.

I have seen this on a grand scale - 72MM LOC over multiple versions (10 year span) of multiple products by the same well-known software company. The occurrence of nearly identical code was the most surprising find.

One product had minimal redundancy. It used a plug-in architecture for the entire application - not just for extensions.

Your idea of "superfluous" is my idea of "just enough", and vice-versa.

For example, why have Bentley when we already have Ford? Multiple car manufacturers is surplus, waste, and bloat.

I didn't use the word "superfluous". I define code bloat strictly as redundant code inside the source tree.

Car manufacturers do not exist inside the source tree.

They aren't even obviously unnecessary; After all, people have different tastes about whether they like a Bentley or they like a Ford.

The computer (however) does not have taste, and it doesn't care whether you like your strcmp or my strcmp.

Meaningless snarl? How DRY is your code, and have any refactoring attempts been made to dry up the code. Do you have unused functions, methods, classes that are there because you think you might need them in the future. Does every binary have all the code for other architectures that are not specific to the current platform of execution. Etc... I could go on with several more examples, but it's the exact opposite of illusionary.

If everyone has a different definition, the term has no real definition. That's my point.

Those aren't different definitions, they're all examples of artifact waste. If something has multiple examples, it doesn't mean it has multiple definitions.

Except your example of "extra" is my example of "just enough".

I didn't use the word extra.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com