3 ms·

>That seems a bit extreme Not to me, I would have done the same. And I tend to look at the binary size of simple programs to get a first taste of the style of

>That seems a bit extreme Not to me, I would have done the same. And I tend to look at the binary size of simple programs to get a first taste of the style of tech I am looking at. Bloated binaries and slow compilation time are red flags in my book, I use them as simple heuristics to avoid losing too much time. I know it is not perfect, but it is fast and simple, like all good heuristics.

Aransentin 5y ago
This was pretty much it. (I am the author) People do low-commitment exploration of new tech all the time, perhaps offhandedly download some new language compiler to see what all the fuss is about. Even a modestly negative experience can easily tip the scales for them to lose interest and go do something else.
- chespinoza 5y ago
  You have to consider that go users can come from worst places(i.e. Java or Interpreted dynamic languages) so just getting a statically compiled binary to deploy it's already a big improvement.
1_player 5y ago
It's fast and simple but not a good heuristic. It's like judging a car by how expensive it is. It has nothing to do with how the thing performs. Optimising for size is such a waste of time in this day and age. I know I would rather choose a 5 MB statically linked binary than a 5 KB dynamically linked one, because they take pretty much the same amount of perceived time to transfer over the internet, yet the smaller file might take more of my time because I need to find and install missing dependencies. On the list of priorities for language developers, size optimisation is towards the bottom, unless we're talking about embedded but we aren't.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Compiling dynamically is not really optimizing for size, since you have to include size of said dependencies. As far as whether size matters - it really depends. Some parts of the world are still mostly on dialup (or very slow mobile).
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  You are right to some extent. Except in very specific context, shaving bytes is pointless, and a few kilobytes are barely relevant. But in the real world we're often talking about several orders of magnitude differences. I would still accept a Hello World that is around 100Kbytes, but not an order of magnitude more. And I am talking about statically linked app, this is an other subject but I tend to think that dynamically linking is way overused and rarely justified.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    But that assumes that file size grows linearly with code length, which is not the case. Twice the code size for a hello wold will be barely any larger than the hello world itself.

Aransentin 5y ago

This was pretty much it. (I am the author) People do low-commitment exploration of new tech all the time, perhaps offhandedly download some new language compiler to see what all the fuss is about. Even a modestly negative experience can easily tip the scales for them to lose interest and go do something else.

chespinoza 5y ago
You have to consider that go users can come from worst places(i.e. Java or Interpreted dynamic languages) so just getting a statically compiled binary to deploy it's already a big improvement.

1_player 5y ago

It's fast and simple but not a good heuristic. It's like judging a car by how expensive it is. It has nothing to do with how the thing performs. Optimising for size is such a waste of time in this day and age. I know I would rather choose a 5 MB statically linked binary than a 5 KB dynamically linked one, because they take pretty much the same amount of perceived time to transfer over the internet, yet the smaller file might take more of my time because I need to find and install missing dependencies. On the list of priorities for language developers, size optimisation is towards the bottom, unless we're talking about embedded but we aren't.

int_19h 5y ago
Compiling dynamically is not really optimizing for size, since you have to include size of said dependencies. As far as whether size matters - it really depends. Some parts of the world are still mostly on dialup (or very slow mobile).
stephc_int13 5y ago
You are right to some extent. Except in very specific context, shaving bytes is pointless, and a few kilobytes are barely relevant. But in the real world we're often talking about several orders of magnitude differences. I would still accept a Hello World that is around 100Kbytes, but not an order of magnitude more. And I am talking about statically linked app, this is an other subject but I tend to think that dynamically linking is way overused and rarely justified.
- kaba0 5y ago
  But that assumes that file size grows linearly with code length, which is not the case. Twice the code size for a hello wold will be barely any larger than the hello world itself.