3 ms·
Amusingly, both nano and mg (micro Emacs clone) executables are smaller than nvi, which is probably the version of vi you'll end up with if you're optimizing fo
by barrkel 6y ago
Amusingly, both nano and mg (micro Emacs clone) executables are smaller than nvi, which is probably the version of vi you'll end up with if you're optimizing for size and not going full busybox. vim-tiny is like 5x bigger again, because you're getting the full vim executable.
- dijit 6y agoThe point is that you're including it already for POSIX compliance. For much the same reason Teams is eating slacks lunch: if the 'cost' is included for other reasons then it's a safe default because it wont cost _more_.
- barrkel 6y agoSure. But if you're building a system down to a size, you're probably not that concerned about POSIX compliance, because mere POSIX compliance isn't enough beyond the most rudimentary of software. And if you're running something statically linked with minimal dependencies, it almost certainly requires a lot less than all things POSIX, so you can cut even further. My point was on size, not POSIX compliance. I just found the actual sizes amusing.
- rbanffy 6y agoIs POSIX compliance still a major selling point? Is it still mandated by regulations?
- dijit 6y agoit doesn't matter if it's mandated or not. If you write a POSIX compliant shell script then that expresses its portability. You can argue merits or demerits of POSIX as a system, but there needs to be some common base regardless, otherwise it's the wild west.