18 ms·

I haven't used this app, but something that makes me smile is that the paid version is only 563KB (the paid version is 4.6MB, and I suppose it's pleasant that t

by xxr 4y ago

I haven't used this app, but something that makes me smile is that the paid version is only 563KB (the paid version is 4.6MB, and I suppose it's pleasant that the ad SDKs are "only" 4 megs). After seeing every major app take up 100MB+ for years, I had just assumed that there was some kind of static packaging inherent to all iOS apps that jacked the deliverable size up so high. I don't know whether Ueda was deliberately trying to get it as small as possible, or if his design is so elegant that it just naturally led to such a tiny artifact. Either way, as long as the 3.5" floppy is still in its sunset period[0], I suppose it's nice that there's modern software that will still fit on it. [0]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62749310 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62749310

auggierose 4y ago
If it is an app built in Swift, then iOS and macOS ship already with all of its runtime libraries, so the app itself can be very small.
Someone 4y ago
> there was some kind of static packaging inherent to all iOS apps There was for apps using Swift. Before the Swift ABI was frozen, iOS apps using Swift had to statically link the Swift standard library. Nowadays, iOS provides it as a dynamic library. (and having a stable ABI is quite an accomplishment for a language like Swift. See https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/ https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/)
- saagarjha 4y ago
  The Swift libraries are not all that large, perhaps a dozen MB or so.
postalrat 4y ago
The web app version would probably be 1/10th of that.
- miniBill 4y ago
  I mean... it depends what you want to support. My web calculator [fully client side] is 370kb of JS. It has features that this doesn't have (3d rendering, solving equations), but doesn't have code that this needs (mostly, the keyboard)...
- donkarma 4y ago
- pwinnski 4y ago
  On the one hand, there's your claim that a web version of TwinCalc should be 56.3K or so. On the other hand, there's a world of existing web apps which are generally very much larger than that. A smaller footprint than 563K would be a dubious advantage for web apps in either case.

by xxr 4y ago

auggierose 4y ago

If it is an app built in Swift, then iOS and macOS ship already with all of its runtime libraries, so the app itself can be very small.

Someone 4y ago

> there was some kind of static packaging inherent to all iOS apps There was for apps using Swift. Before the Swift ABI was frozen, iOS apps using Swift had to statically link the Swift standard library. Nowadays, iOS provides it as a dynamic library. (and having a stable ABI is quite an accomplishment for a language like Swift. See https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/ https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/)

saagarjha 4y ago
The Swift libraries are not all that large, perhaps a dozen MB or so.

postalrat 4y ago

The web app version would probably be 1/10th of that.

miniBill 4y ago
I mean... it depends what you want to support. My web calculator [fully client side] is 370kb of JS. It has features that this doesn't have (3d rendering, solving equations), but doesn't have code that this needs (mostly, the keyboard)...
donkarma 4y ago
pwinnski 4y ago
On the one hand, there's your claim that a web version of TwinCalc should be 56.3K or so. On the other hand, there's a world of existing web apps which are generally very much larger than that. A smaller footprint than 563K would be a dubious advantage for web apps in either case.