5 ms·

it doesn't matter how long it takes for people to download it it is plain and simple, waste of bits, and bits is money, the more you have, the more money it'll

it doesn't matter how long it takes for people to download it it is plain and simple, waste of bits, and bits is money, the more you have, the more money it'll cost you to move around, process and store scale this to billion of computers, and you'll understand what i mean by waste

cameronh90 6y ago
It's an insignificant cost. Nobody cares about it at any scale except embedded development (or occasionally due to artificial restrictions created by app stores). The money saved by shaving a few MB off your binary is going to always be like 0.00001% of your costs, and even if you're at such a massive scale where that could justify developer investment, there's going to be lower hanging fruit to worry about. If you're at such a level of optimisation that it's correct to worry about deploying a 60MB binary, you must be doing exceptionally well. Most places (including Amazon and Google) are using 200MB+ docker images and serving poorly optimised image files. And if it _really_ bothers you, you can always install the runtime separately for a sub-1MB binary, or use trimming for a sub-10MB binary.
- Shadonototro 6y ago
  all i am saying is fact, it is a waste don't ship what's not needed, it's a waste and it tells a lot about the mentality of the developers/company 60mb, now CDN server need at least 60mb of storage to cache your file compare this to a developer that care and will produce the same with a native language for 6mb, that's 10x less the space needed it'll cost CDN 10x less money to store and serve since they'll need 10x less storage and will require less bandwidth too for you single dev, you apparently don't care, but it then hurts everyone, including global warming issue and at the end, it'll hurt me, now my 128gb SSD isn't enough to store all the electron shit, i need upgrade to install new update cpu and memory also has to take longer to load and cache all your program it is the reason why software sucks despite hardware becoming better, nobody care anymore and it all start at the developper computer, if you don't care, nothing will improve, and every bits matter, either you like it or not, that's how computers work
  - xfer 6y ago
    If you are talking about end user software, you can just depend on platform dotnet and just ship your library/executables. For server software 60mb is not much when you see most people ship gigabytes of docker containers for os runtime.
  - Shadonototro 6y ago
    and idk why there is this culture in "IT" of not wanting to acknoledge how computers work, and how bloat affects performance, efficiency, cost and global warming i came to the conclusion that clueless people managed to get into high positions, and wanted to secure their position by hiring the same kind of people, the people who don't give a damn about performance problems they'll just waste (again the word waste) more funds from the company after all, if nobody know how computer works, they'll just agree and sign the big invoice without asking themselves, wait, don't we pay too much to deliver this web page, do we really it to be 260mb?

cameronh90 6y ago

It's an insignificant cost. Nobody cares about it at any scale except embedded development (or occasionally due to artificial restrictions created by app stores). The money saved by shaving a few MB off your binary is going to always be like 0.00001% of your costs, and even if you're at such a massive scale where that could justify developer investment, there's going to be lower hanging fruit to worry about. If you're at such a level of optimisation that it's correct to worry about deploying a 60MB binary, you must be doing exceptionally well. Most places (including Amazon and Google) are using 200MB+ docker images and serving poorly optimised image files. And if it _really_ bothers you, you can always install the runtime separately for a sub-1MB binary, or use trimming for a sub-10MB binary.

Shadonototro 6y ago
all i am saying is fact, it is a waste don't ship what's not needed, it's a waste and it tells a lot about the mentality of the developers/company 60mb, now CDN server need at least 60mb of storage to cache your file compare this to a developer that care and will produce the same with a native language for 6mb, that's 10x less the space needed it'll cost CDN 10x less money to store and serve since they'll need 10x less storage and will require less bandwidth too for you single dev, you apparently don't care, but it then hurts everyone, including global warming issue and at the end, it'll hurt me, now my 128gb SSD isn't enough to store all the electron shit, i need upgrade to install new update cpu and memory also has to take longer to load and cache all your program it is the reason why software sucks despite hardware becoming better, nobody care anymore and it all start at the developper computer, if you don't care, nothing will improve, and every bits matter, either you like it or not, that's how computers work
- xfer 6y ago
  If you are talking about end user software, you can just depend on platform dotnet and just ship your library/executables. For server software 60mb is not much when you see most people ship gigabytes of docker containers for os runtime.
- Shadonototro 6y ago
  and idk why there is this culture in "IT" of not wanting to acknoledge how computers work, and how bloat affects performance, efficiency, cost and global warming i came to the conclusion that clueless people managed to get into high positions, and wanted to secure their position by hiring the same kind of people, the people who don't give a damn about performance problems they'll just waste (again the word waste) more funds from the company after all, if nobody know how computer works, they'll just agree and sign the big invoice without asking themselves, wait, don't we pay too much to deliver this web page, do we really it to be 260mb?