2 ms·

1) But as it turned out, the cost wasn't so high after all. (They didn't expect their graphic stack to run fast enough in a laptop, yet it does.) 2) What, they

• beagle3 14y ago
  > What, they do not count the RFC they parse? No, they don't. > I'd count that as cheating: if the RFC is part of the meaning of the system, it should be taken into account. I don't think it is cheating. The RFC text is essentially arbitrary, and "god-given" as far they are concerned -- and must only be adhered to for compliance with other systems. (If they designed their own network protocols, I would have agreed with you). By parsing it and generating code, they guarantee that the code conforms with the spec (which is more than you can say for any other network stack implementation!). And it's all down to what they are trying to achieve: They are NOT trying to minimize LOC -- if they wanted to do that, they'd build everything in obfuscated APL or J. They want to get to a state in which a person can understand / audit the entire software stack of a system they are running. 20k was selected as what a person can completely follow & understand in a reasonable amount of time (weeks, not years or centuries) You cannot (average human "you") understand/audit a TCP/IP stack without reading the RFCs; therefore, they don't think they need to double-count it, and neither do I. Furthermore, if tomorrow the world switches to curveCP, they wouldn't include the related RFCs either -- only the code they had to write to make it work.