4 ms·

It's kind of horrifying to open my /Applications folder and realise that it contains probably twenty web browsers, eighteen of which are disguised as stand-alon

It's kind of horrifying to open my /Applications folder and realise that it contains probably twenty web browsers, eighteen of which are disguised as stand-alone applications. Often very simple ones. BalenaEtcher, a pretty front-end for a bunch of drive-copying terminal commands, is over 200 megabytes. A competent developer could probably recreate its functionality with 20 kilobytes of shell script. Yes, this script probably wouldn't be cross-platform, but I dare say that there's more than 20 kilobytes of platform-specific code in the current BalenaEtcher app already...

joemi 6y ago
For better or worse, it doesn't really need to be smaller.
- snypher 6y ago
  Of course it does. It's really a giant waste of bandwidth for a program that is probably 50% 'dd if of bs'.
  - curryst 6y ago
    Sure, and your house might look a smidgen better if it were painted a slightly different shade of the same color. It's a lot of work for very little gain. Bandwidth is cheap. Human time is not. There are better ways to spend development time than shaving 2 seconds off the download of a utility app.
  - joemi 6y ago
    And yet loads of people still use it, and loads of people still recommend it... That’s what I mean by it doesn’t need to be smaller. It’s already hugely popular at the size it is, even though it’s a waste of bandwidth.
ubidefeo 6y ago
>Yes, this script probably wouldn't be cross-platform, but I dare say that there's more than 20 kilobytes of platform-specific code in the current BalenaEtcher app already. I can do what BalenaEtcher needs to be done in a shell, but how many can/want to? When you say "probably wouldn't be cross-platform" you have already given a reason for this to exist. "20KB of platform-specific code", you clearly know what you're talking about. You should write cross-platform applications.
- simondotau 5y ago
  I don't understand the point of your snark. If you're trying to pointing out that writing cross-platform applications isn't trivial, you're agreeing with me.

joemi 6y ago

For better or worse, it doesn't really need to be smaller.

snypher 6y ago
Of course it does. It's really a giant waste of bandwidth for a program that is probably 50% 'dd if of bs'.
- curryst 6y ago
  Sure, and your house might look a smidgen better if it were painted a slightly different shade of the same color. It's a lot of work for very little gain. Bandwidth is cheap. Human time is not. There are better ways to spend development time than shaving 2 seconds off the download of a utility app.
- joemi 6y ago
  And yet loads of people still use it, and loads of people still recommend it... That’s what I mean by it doesn’t need to be smaller. It’s already hugely popular at the size it is, even though it’s a waste of bandwidth.

ubidefeo 6y ago

>Yes, this script probably wouldn't be cross-platform, but I dare say that there's more than 20 kilobytes of platform-specific code in the current BalenaEtcher app already. I can do what BalenaEtcher needs to be done in a shell, but how many can/want to? When you say "probably wouldn't be cross-platform" you have already given a reason for this to exist. "20KB of platform-specific code", you clearly know what you're talking about. You should write cross-platform applications.

simondotau 5y ago
I don't understand the point of your snark. If you're trying to pointing out that writing cross-platform applications isn't trivial, you're agreeing with me.