3 ms·

The visual studio build tools are substantially smaller than 40GB. My IDE install is about 25GB, and visual studio has distributed the build tools separately si

The visual studio build tools are substantially smaller than 40GB. My IDE install is about 25GB, and visual studio has distributed the build tools separately since vs2015 - my toolchains directory is about 4GB including whatever dotnet runtimes, windows GDK. > Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive. Professionally, no excuse. As an open source or otherwise unpaid pursuit, a 250GB SSD is about $45 on Amazon right now. That more than comfortably fits your 60GB estimate, with plenty of room to spare.

BoorishBears 4y ago
It's interesting how people assume that their world is everyone else's... It's easy to forget that there are billions of people for whom $45 is a massive investment, and that SSD isn't so conveniently available even if they have the money. I know I got into programming on a mix of graphing calculators and thrown out PCs, and I also distinctly remember having to work around the download sizes of tooling because I was using really crappy internet. I don't think it's unreasonable for the poster to wish that they could build useful binaries without 60GBs of downloading and storage...
- dgfitz 4y ago
  I’d say the part where the gp specifically said ssd invalidates your point __in this particular situtation__ because a person worried about their budget wouldn’t splurge on an ssd. I also, after a cursory search, have found that the cheapest hard drives are around $25 USD. While $20 isn’t nothing, it also isn’t budget-breaking.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    ... what? You think someone stretching their money for an SSD somehow indicates that they're not worried about their budget? Here's a hint: if they had the budget and availability they'd just get a bigger SSD and not write that comment. - Obviously, due to some aspect of their circumstance, be it availability, cost, download speeds, etc. the size of the toolkit is problematic. I mean there's no intrinsic size for a development toolkit, but I don't know anyone who'd say 60GBs of data is a small development toolkit when as others have pointed out, there are older versions of the same Windows toolchains that still complete the same function and manage to take a fraction of the space...
    - dgfitz 4y ago
      What I’m saying is the delta between a very cheap hdd and an ssd is 20 bucks. This whole assuming everyone is destitute is getting rather tiring.
      - BoorishBears 4y ago
        It's strange that I'm repeatedly explaining you don't even have to be destitute for it to be a problem, but your mind can only latch onto "at the store I have access to with almost everything one could ever want in stock, the price delta is 'only' $20" But yeah, seriously woe is you having to momentarily imagine some people are poor or have trouble getting access to tech. I'm from Ghana so I guess it's not as onerous to imagine people don't live the exact same life I do in the US.
- navjack27 4y ago
  If stretching your budget is so important then enable NTFS compression on your entire drive... I'm storing well over a terabyte of data on my one terabyte drive right now lol
- maccard 4y ago
  > it's easy to forget that there are billions of people for whom $45 is a massive investment, and that SSD isn't so conveniently available even if they have the money. So those people can use whatever hardware they have available to them and not buy the SSD. The parent specifically said it was hard to fit on an SSD, so I assumed they could buy one based on that > I know I got into programming on a mix of graphing calculators and thrown out PCs, and I also distinctly remember having to work around the download sizes of tooling because I was using really crappy internet. Graphing calculators, and raspberry PIs (and other various low power devices) are still widely available for people to learn and experiment with. Internet speeds are still a problem in many places but ay some point the software has to be delivered to you, and as I mentioned previously the actually install sizes are not 60GB, and the downloads are significantly smaller (a windows 10 iso fits on a 4GB usb) > without 60GBs of downloading and storage... Firstly, it's not 60GB - see my previous post about how much space it actually takes up. It's closer to 30GB. Secondly, if you don't have 30GB of storage of any kind available to you on a computing device,then sure, meanwhile anyone running a machine bought in the last 15 years will have that space available to them.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    The forest for the trees wouldn't begin to cover half these responses. Let me say it again, 60, 30, even 10GBs, is a lot when there's tooling from the same company, that still make similarly functional binaries, that took 342 MB. You don't need to keep obsessing over "how dare this person with limited resources use an SSD!", like I said you run into similar issues with just downloading the stuff. Again, forest for the trees. - Instead maybe you can sit back and just ask "why the bloat over time"? And the reality is likely: "because no one optimized for it". Because for them lots of fast storage and internet speed are no problem That line of reasoning maybe allows you to see things from a different prospective and break some assumptions about end users. Isn't that more useful than browbeating some random for not having 30GB free on their SSD?
javajosh 4y ago
*>My IDE install is about 25GB Would love to see a breakdown of where that space is going. FWIW IntelliJ takes up 2.5GB, and honestly, even THAT seems like a lot to me.
- maccard 4y ago
  I have no idea sorry! On the Jetbrains front that's interesting. My Intellij folder is closer to 4GB, but that's only for one language. I've also got Rider and Goland installed, and Jetbrains duplicates the entire install per IDE. My Jetbrains folder is 12GB. > even THAT seems like a lot to me. That's a little silly - what is an acceptable amount in that case. The JDK on its own is about 700MB (that's a guesstimate based on last time I installed it sorry).
  - javajosh 4y ago
    We are two wealthy people arguing over rents, with you saying $1M/month is reasonable, I'm saying it's not, I'm only paying $100k/month, meanwhile most of the world is paying on average $100/month. 25GB is enormous. 2.5GB is enormous. Consider that the core value of this software is text editing. Consider that not long ago people were buying PCs with perhaps 10MB of hard disk - or even no hard disk at all (e.g. the Apple IIe). Windows XP and Office 97, for example, were (if memory serves) less than 1 GB total. FoxPro for DOS was something like 4 megabytes - and FoxPro was a form builder plus relational database. Consider that with a thoughtful use of resources and an eye toward minimizing attack surface, you can put a fully functional http/s app server in a 1.9MB package (redbean). These sizes are silly, and they should give you pause. The space is cheap, yes, but the attack surface is not.
    - izacus 4y ago
      It's not "text editing". It's "developing software" with all the tools that belong to that - from understanding the language, to compiling it, optimizing it, linking it and carrying necessary documentation and support libraries. Don't be reductive - just because your linux hides those costs directly in /usr and /var it doesn't mean those things don't exist.

BoorishBears 4y ago

It's interesting how people assume that their world is everyone else's... It's easy to forget that there are billions of people for whom $45 is a massive investment, and that SSD isn't so conveniently available even if they have the money. I know I got into programming on a mix of graphing calculators and thrown out PCs, and I also distinctly remember having to work around the download sizes of tooling because I was using really crappy internet. I don't think it's unreasonable for the poster to wish that they could build useful binaries without 60GBs of downloading and storage...

dgfitz 4y ago
I’d say the part where the gp specifically said ssd invalidates your point __in this particular situtation__ because a person worried about their budget wouldn’t splurge on an ssd. I also, after a cursory search, have found that the cheapest hard drives are around $25 USD. While $20 isn’t nothing, it also isn’t budget-breaking.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  ... what? You think someone stretching their money for an SSD somehow indicates that they're not worried about their budget? Here's a hint: if they had the budget and availability they'd just get a bigger SSD and not write that comment. - Obviously, due to some aspect of their circumstance, be it availability, cost, download speeds, etc. the size of the toolkit is problematic. I mean there's no intrinsic size for a development toolkit, but I don't know anyone who'd say 60GBs of data is a small development toolkit when as others have pointed out, there are older versions of the same Windows toolchains that still complete the same function and manage to take a fraction of the space...
  - dgfitz 4y ago
    What I’m saying is the delta between a very cheap hdd and an ssd is 20 bucks. This whole assuming everyone is destitute is getting rather tiring.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      It's strange that I'm repeatedly explaining you don't even have to be destitute for it to be a problem, but your mind can only latch onto "at the store I have access to with almost everything one could ever want in stock, the price delta is 'only' $20" But yeah, seriously woe is you having to momentarily imagine some people are poor or have trouble getting access to tech. I'm from Ghana so I guess it's not as onerous to imagine people don't live the exact same life I do in the US.
navjack27 4y ago
If stretching your budget is so important then enable NTFS compression on your entire drive... I'm storing well over a terabyte of data on my one terabyte drive right now lol
maccard 4y ago
> it's easy to forget that there are billions of people for whom $45 is a massive investment, and that SSD isn't so conveniently available even if they have the money. So those people can use whatever hardware they have available to them and not buy the SSD. The parent specifically said it was hard to fit on an SSD, so I assumed they could buy one based on that > I know I got into programming on a mix of graphing calculators and thrown out PCs, and I also distinctly remember having to work around the download sizes of tooling because I was using really crappy internet. Graphing calculators, and raspberry PIs (and other various low power devices) are still widely available for people to learn and experiment with. Internet speeds are still a problem in many places but ay some point the software has to be delivered to you, and as I mentioned previously the actually install sizes are not 60GB, and the downloads are significantly smaller (a windows 10 iso fits on a 4GB usb) > without 60GBs of downloading and storage... Firstly, it's not 60GB - see my previous post about how much space it actually takes up. It's closer to 30GB. Secondly, if you don't have 30GB of storage of any kind available to you on a computing device,then sure, meanwhile anyone running a machine bought in the last 15 years will have that space available to them.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  The forest for the trees wouldn't begin to cover half these responses. Let me say it again, 60, 30, even 10GBs, is a lot when there's tooling from the same company, that still make similarly functional binaries, that took 342 MB. You don't need to keep obsessing over "how dare this person with limited resources use an SSD!", like I said you run into similar issues with just downloading the stuff. Again, forest for the trees. - Instead maybe you can sit back and just ask "why the bloat over time"? And the reality is likely: "because no one optimized for it". Because for them lots of fast storage and internet speed are no problem That line of reasoning maybe allows you to see things from a different prospective and break some assumptions about end users. Isn't that more useful than browbeating some random for not having 30GB free on their SSD?

javajosh 4y ago

*>My IDE install is about 25GB Would love to see a breakdown of where that space is going. FWIW IntelliJ takes up 2.5GB, and honestly, even THAT seems like a lot to me.

maccard 4y ago
I have no idea sorry! On the Jetbrains front that's interesting. My Intellij folder is closer to 4GB, but that's only for one language. I've also got Rider and Goland installed, and Jetbrains duplicates the entire install per IDE. My Jetbrains folder is 12GB. > even THAT seems like a lot to me. That's a little silly - what is an acceptable amount in that case. The JDK on its own is about 700MB (that's a guesstimate based on last time I installed it sorry).
- javajosh 4y ago
  We are two wealthy people arguing over rents, with you saying $1M/month is reasonable, I'm saying it's not, I'm only paying $100k/month, meanwhile most of the world is paying on average $100/month. 25GB is enormous. 2.5GB is enormous. Consider that the core value of this software is text editing. Consider that not long ago people were buying PCs with perhaps 10MB of hard disk - or even no hard disk at all (e.g. the Apple IIe). Windows XP and Office 97, for example, were (if memory serves) less than 1 GB total. FoxPro for DOS was something like 4 megabytes - and FoxPro was a form builder plus relational database. Consider that with a thoughtful use of resources and an eye toward minimizing attack surface, you can put a fully functional http/s app server in a 1.9MB package (redbean). These sizes are silly, and they should give you pause. The space is cheap, yes, but the attack surface is not.
  - izacus 4y ago
    It's not "text editing". It's "developing software" with all the tools that belong to that - from understanding the language, to compiling it, optimizing it, linking it and carrying necessary documentation and support libraries. Don't be reductive - just because your linux hides those costs directly in /usr and /var it doesn't mean those things don't exist.