diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'www')
| -rwxr-xr-x | www/design.html | 31 |
1 files changed, 23 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/www/design.html b/www/design.html index ce5fc55b..dc0bea21 100755 --- a/www/design.html +++ b/www/design.html @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ use case is to download a statically linked toybox binary to an arbitrary Linux system, and use it in an otherwise unknown environment; being self-contained helps support this.)</p> -<b><h3>Fast</h3></b> +<b><h3>Speed</h3></b> <p>It's easy to say lots about optimizing for speed (which is why this section is so long), but at the same time it's the optimization we care the least about. @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ give at least a reasonable result.</p> applies to toybox. Do the simple thing first, do as little of it as possible, and make sure it's right. You can always speed it up later.</p> -<b><h3>Small</h3></b> +<b><h3>Size</h3></b> <p>Again, simple gives you most of this. An algorithm that does less work is generally smaller. Understand the problem, treat size as a cost, and get a good bang for the byte.</p> @@ -191,7 +191,22 @@ worth it.)</p> <p>Simplicity has lots of benefits. Simple code is easy to maintain, easy to port to new processors, easy to audit for security holes, and easy to -understand. (Comments help, but they're no substitute for simple code.)</p> +understand.</p> + +<p>Simplicity itself can have subtle non-obvious aspects requiring a tradeoff +between one kind of simplicity and another: simple for the computer to +execute and simple for a human reader to understand aren't always the +same thing. A compact and clever algorithm that does very little work may +not be as easy to explain or understand as a larger more explicit version +requiring more code, memory, and CPU time. When balancing these, err on the +side of doing less work, but add comments describing how you +could be more explicit.</p> + +<p>In general, comments are not a substitute for good code (or well chosen +variable or function names). Commenting "x += y;" with "/* add y to x */" +can actually detract from the program's readability. If you need to describe +what the code is doing (rather than _why_ it's doing it), that means the +code itself isn't very clear.</p> <p>Prioritizing simplicity tends to serve our other goals: simplifying code generally reduces its size (both in terms of binary size and runtime memory @@ -199,7 +214,6 @@ usage), and avoiding unnecessary work makes code run faster. Smaller code also tends to run faster on modern hardware due to CPU cacheing: fitting your code into L1 cache is great, and staying in L2 cache is still pretty good.</p> - <p><a href=http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>Joel Spolsky argues against throwing code out and starting over</a>, and he has good points: an existing debugged codebase contains a huge amount of baked @@ -229,10 +243,11 @@ programmers should strive to be lazy and dumb</a>?</p> <b><h2>Portability issues</h2></b> <b><h3>Platforms</h3></b> -<p>Toybox should run on Android (alas, with bionic), and every other hardware -platform Linux runs on. Other posix/susv4 environments (perhaps MacOS X or -newlib+libgloss) are vaguely interesting but only if they're easy to support; -I'm not going to spend much effort on them.</p> +<p>Toybox should run on Android (all commands with musl-libc, as large a subset +as practical with bionic), and every other hardware platform Linux runs on. +Other posix/susv4 environments (perhaps MacOS X or newlib+libgloss) are vaguely +interesting but only if they're easy to support; I'm not going to spend much +effort on them.</p> <p>I don't do windows.</p> |