3 ms·

Micro? really? a 11MB binary?

• kioshix 3y ago
  Seems like a really modern alternative to my 389K nano.
  • oytis 3y ago
    Micro should have been 389M then.
• benhoyt 3y ago
  Yeah, "micro" for an editor would be 11 kilo bytes. I bet it's possible to do a half-decent editor in C in 11KB. Antirez's "kilo" (~1000 lines of C) is 36KB when compiled with standard gcc (https://github.com/antirez/kilo https://github.com/antirez/kilo). That said, for many server-type use cases these days, 11MB isn't a huge deal. Still, I wonder if micro could be compiled on / ported to TinyGo and end up a few hundred KB? It looks like TinyGo can produce some pretty small binaries: https://tinygo.org/docs/guides/optimizing-binaries/ https://tinygo.org/docs/guides/optimizing-binaries/
  • prmoustache 3y ago
    >That said, for many server-type use cases these days, 11MB isn't a huge deal. Yes but that doesn't make it a good candidate for a default editor that would be ubiquitous, from small embedded development stuff to servers to desktop. I don't mind several MB when the tool offer more than the competition. But what are pico/nano lacking really when it comes to editing a few lines in a config file once in a while? It is not like micro is trying to replace visual studio code or emacs either. Or is it?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• KolenCh 3y ago
  11 Micro TB
• daneel_w 3y ago
  Well, it's written in Go, so...
• otterpro 3y ago
  Vim on my macbook is 5MB. Perhaps Micro can be optimized for smaller-sized binary?
  • prmoustache 3y ago
    On some linux distros (debian based) there is a im-tiny package smaller than the full blown vim. Also historically vim was not the default vi clone installed, which was an optionnally installed package. The default was very often a smaller clone: elvis. Busybox as its own vi clone and most BSD OS are still providing nvi by default