Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:53:13 -0400
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <address@hidden>
> Cc: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
>  address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:59:36 +0300 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Everyone who's seriously thought about the unexec problem
> > > _understands_ the issue.
> > 
> > The important point is that the number of people here who can claim
> > such understanding, enough so to fix the issues, is diminishingly
> > small, and gets smaller every year.
> 
> Just an aside: when you attract fewer and fewer users, you end up with
> fewer and fewer contributors. Fewer and fewer contributors makes
> maintenance harder and can create a death spiral for projects. If, in
> an effort to make maintenance easier, you scare off a lot of users,
> you could end up making the maintenance situation worse in the long
> run. I'm not saying that longer start time would scare off users as
> such, but in general, this balance has to be weighed in making
> decisions about usability vs. maintenance costs.

That's a profoundly false premise, and a misrepresentation of
everything I wrote.  No one is arguing for slower startup that will
annoy users!  The issue at hand is which approach to prefer when the
startup time is comparable.