3 ms·

> It's a 55 MB executable. You could fit at least one hundred full blow almost self contained (CLI) text-editors with the feature-set of Lapce in that size… Su

> It's a 55 MB executable. You could fit at least one hundred full blow almost self contained (CLI) text-editors with the feature-set of Lapce in that size… Sure, why not, I've got time to waste on endless bikeshedding... :D IMO 55MB isn't "gigantic"--a 450MB binary could rightly be called "gigantic": https://github.com/lapce/lapce/issues/24#issuecomment-1001226988 https://github.com/lapce/lapce/issues/24#issuecomment-100122... (But, ya know, ya don't get this here debugging info for free.) FWIW the Linux binary I downloaded can be immediately shrunk from 57413256 bytes to 44604432 bytes (~43MB) by running `strip` on it. I imagine further size reductions can be found by following the, by now, "standard", list of steps at https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust but for a pre-pre-alpha personal project I imagine doing so is not a high priority. Also FWIW comparing a "self contained (CLI)" to a self-contained GUI editor seems pretty apples to oranges as comparisons go... I will accept though a 3x multiplier on the "bloated" `emacs25-nox` (~15MB) and a 50x on the svelte `vim.tiny` (~11MB) I found installed locally. (Apparently `emacs25-x` on another machine weighs in at ~17MB so I guess that's the eventual target. :D ) My primary interest in Lapce is for editing Rust code with LSP/Rust-Analyzer support (the latter being where there's actually issues with regard to constrained development environments), I recently almost got there with the KDE Kate editor but a Rust built editor with WASM/WASI as a target for plugins seems more attractive to me going forward.

still_grokking 5y ago
I understand that a code editor is necessarily a little bit bloated. But my comment was more about the binary size. I'm very much not a fan of this static compiled apps even I understand that from the developers standpoint they're nice. But properly packaging such a thing is usually more involved as I would be if is would be modular from the get go. AppImages are a bit better as they're an "overlayed" bundle but still the usual problems remain. How big would it be if it would use the dynamic libs provided by an distribution actually? I guess not bigger than Kate. :-)

still_grokking 5y ago

I understand that a code editor is necessarily a little bit bloated. But my comment was more about the binary size. I'm very much not a fan of this static compiled apps even I understand that from the developers standpoint they're nice. But properly packaging such a thing is usually more involved as I would be if is would be modular from the get go. AppImages are a bit better as they're an "overlayed" bundle but still the usual problems remain. How big would it be if it would use the dynamic libs provided by an distribution actually? I guess not bigger than Kate. :-)