🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1132@sranha.sra.co.jp> erik@srava.sra.co.jp (Erik M. van der Poel) writes:
>Using numbers for the message ids was a bad idea in the first place. 
Why?

>Wouldn't it be possible to create a reasonably efficient
>implementation using hashing and caching with symbolic names instead
>of numeric ids? Then we can add/delete/modify messages at will. We
>should leave numbering and counting to the computer.

--MILD FLAME--
Sure.  The X Window System does just that with resource names.  You
too can waste lots of memory and time putting strings in your program
so that you don't have to think about numbers.  And now of course you'll
have to worry about runtime type checking, since you'll no longer have
the compiler telling you that you misspelled something.  So five years
from now when your application tries to print some obscure error message
it will fail because you mistyped a string.

Memory is *not* free.
--END MILD FLAME--

The use of strings in X makes a modicom of sense, since it allows you
to specify resources in a resource file.  A mapping between strings and
resource names was needed.  I'm curious what advantage you think strings
would give you in this instance.
						-kee


-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.