3 ms·

It's not Swift. App sizes are mostly increased by graphic assets, and libraries. Here is a 15,000 line swift app that compiles to 11 megs. https://blog.halide.

It's not Swift. App sizes are mostly increased by graphic assets, and libraries. Here is a 15,000 line swift app that compiles to 11 megs. https://blog.halide.cam/one-weird-trick-to-lose-size-c0a4013de331 https://blog.halide.cam/one-weird-trick-to-lose-size-c0a4013... I'm skeptical Swift creates significantly larger binaries, let alone 3x-4x, but I'd still use it if so. Using optionals and stronger typing is makes it easier to write correct code, and anyway we can save users from wild pointer crashes is super valuable. Far more valuable than the cost of a couple megabytes of code in an ocean of PNGs and Cocoapods.

adamwk 9y ago
Yeah, Swift should only contribute a small, constant amount to account for the runtime and standard library. 3-4x doesn't make sense.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  Go decompile using an optional or an array, or interfacing with an Obj-C lib, you'll be surprised how much ASM is generated. You'll also be surprised how much stuff is reduced in swift 4. Swift is still in beta, lots of low hanging fruit to improve still.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thought_alarm 9y ago
Actually, use of large value types in Swift can cause significant binary bloat. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207752
mahyarm 9y ago
That same app written in 17kloc of objective c code would be significantly smaller. The reason why it's small is because it just doesn't have a lot of code. Most these fat apps have already done all the other easy crap specified in the article. The author knows that all the other apps are at least 500kloc of code minimum, he worked at twitter. All other things being equal, a swift app is much larger. The article also is just talking about binary sizes, not about all the other graphical assets.
developer2 9y ago
I recall reading at one point that apps written in Swift statically bundle the entire set of libraries, whereas Objective C apps use shared libraries from the operating system. Something about Swift not having yet reached the level of maturity to warrant the use of stable shared libs. If and when Swift switches to supporting shared libs, app sizes should shrink.

adamwk 9y ago

Yeah, Swift should only contribute a small, constant amount to account for the runtime and standard library. 3-4x doesn't make sense.

mahyarm 9y ago
Go decompile using an optional or an array, or interfacing with an Obj-C lib, you'll be surprised how much ASM is generated. You'll also be surprised how much stuff is reduced in swift 4. Swift is still in beta, lots of low hanging fruit to improve still.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thought_alarm 9y ago

Actually, use of large value types in Swift can cause significant binary bloat. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14207752

mahyarm 9y ago

That same app written in 17kloc of objective c code would be significantly smaller. The reason why it's small is because it just doesn't have a lot of code. Most these fat apps have already done all the other easy crap specified in the article. The author knows that all the other apps are at least 500kloc of code minimum, he worked at twitter. All other things being equal, a swift app is much larger. The article also is just talking about binary sizes, not about all the other graphical assets.

developer2 9y ago

I recall reading at one point that apps written in Swift statically bundle the entire set of libraries, whereas Objective C apps use shared libraries from the operating system. Something about Swift not having yet reached the level of maturity to warrant the use of stable shared libs. If and when Swift switches to supporting shared libs, app sizes should shrink.