4 ms·

For reference, a full install of Windows 95 is about 50MB. There is something deeply wrong with this entire industry.

crazygringo 6y ago
But those are compiled binaries, not source code. I guarantee you the source code for Windows 95 is vastly larger than the 106 MB we're talking about for Rails. And considering the ridiculously large number of things Rails does that Windows 95 didn't... the sheer number of different technologies, standards, formats and versions it's able to interface with... I don't see what's wrong at all.
- userbinator 6y ago
  I guarantee you the source code for Windows 95 is vastly larger than the 106 MB we're talking about for Rails. I wouldn't be so sure. Win95 has a lot of pieces written in Asm (source > binary), mostly the low-level parts, but also a lot of C/C++ (binary > source).
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    I mean, I know that for a small "hello world", you'll get an executable much larger than the source code. But with a decent-sized program, full of header files and comments and config files and descriptive variable names and all the rest, there quickly comes a point where the executable is vastly smaller, no? I really can't believe that the C/C++ source code for Windows (or Word or Photoshop or whatever) winds up compiling to a larger file size, can it?
    - flqn 6y ago
      It really depends. Small amount of source code doesn't necessarily mean a small binary if you have a ton of template instantiations.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    > also a lot of C/C++ (binary > source) Unless you're doing a debug build, lots of metaprogramming, or have a tiny source where linker overhead is larger - C source is going to be larger than the binary.
viraptor 6y ago
While true, that's compiled windows 95. The binary of actually-used js compiled to native code would be tiny.
_pdp_ 6y ago
How big are all the development libraries and tools that made that 50MB final install pack?

But those are compiled binaries, not source code. I guarantee you the source code for Windows 95 is vastly larger than the 106 MB we're talking about for Rails. And considering the ridiculously large number of things Rails does that Windows 95 didn't... the sheer number of different technologies, standards, formats and versions it's able to interface with... I don't see what's wrong at all.

userbinator 6y ago
I guarantee you the source code for Windows 95 is vastly larger than the 106 MB we're talking about for Rails. I wouldn't be so sure. Win95 has a lot of pieces written in Asm (source > binary), mostly the low-level parts, but also a lot of C/C++ (binary > source).
- crazygringo 6y ago
  I mean, I know that for a small "hello world", you'll get an executable much larger than the source code. But with a decent-sized program, full of header files and comments and config files and descriptive variable names and all the rest, there quickly comes a point where the executable is vastly smaller, no? I really can't believe that the C/C++ source code for Windows (or Word or Photoshop or whatever) winds up compiling to a larger file size, can it?
  - flqn 6y ago
    It really depends. Small amount of source code doesn't necessarily mean a small binary if you have a ton of template instantiations.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > also a lot of C/C++ (binary > source) Unless you're doing a debug build, lots of metaprogramming, or have a tiny source where linker overhead is larger - C source is going to be larger than the binary.

viraptor 6y ago

While true, that's compiled windows 95. The binary of actually-used js compiled to native code would be tiny.

_pdp_ 6y ago

How big are all the development libraries and tools that made that 50MB final install pack?