risc or cisc

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 11:29 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > I think a mini language is definitely more complex *today* but we're
> > adding more and more methods - and the complexity of creating good
> > abstractions is getting higher and higher.
> 
> I'd really like to encourage you in the strongest possible terms
> to experiment with the simple, mini-language approach. I'll be
> surprised if it reduces complexity but that isn't the primary issue
> IMNSHO. To me, it's all about matching the base technology with
> the problem domain. *I* think RPCs are a LAN-appropriate technology
> when we have a WAN performance problem to be addressed.
> ...

> Of course, YMMV. But I can't tell you how happy it makes me to see
> this on the table ...

I had largely decided to at least experiment when I brought this up;
Andrew and I had an inconclusive discussion - no great reason to, or not
to. I appreciate having someone pop up and say 'done this before in
similar circumstances and it rocked'.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090417/5035bef4/attachment.pgp