3 ms·
I concur there's obvious bloat and unnecessary cruft but also: - Most text is now utf-8/Unicode, which requires at last 2x memory for the same text length in c
by sombragris 3y ago
I concur there's obvious bloat and unnecessary cruft but also:
- Most text is now utf-8/Unicode, which requires at last 2x memory for the same text length in comparison with ASCII/ISO-8859.
- As others have said, code is 64-bit now, which multiplies the space and memory which used to be required by 32- or 16-bit apps.
- The relentless, unyelding and unforgiving pressure to produce results quickly under insane constraints discourages or forbids any kind of optimization. Now you just put your interpreted code with an Electron platform and call it an app.
- charcircuit 3y ago>Most text is now utf-8/Unicode, which requires at last 2x memory for the same text length in comparison with ASCII/ISO-8859. No? Are you thinking of UTI-16?
- demetrius 3y ago> No? Or maybe author's native language is not English. :D UTF-8 does require twice as much bytes for Cyrillic, for example. Besides, there's a lot of other operations that happen in modern OS that makes text editing more expensive. E.g. modern applications need to account for bidirectional text, so things like "determining the correspondence between a character on screen and in memory" suddenly require table lookups to determine if the character is RTL or LTR.
- sombragris 3y agoYour conjecture is correct. I should have said that utf-8 could require more memory. My native language is not English. Apologies for any incorrections. Also, I concur with your point re: complex text editing.
- charcircuit 3y agoCyrillic can not be expressed in ASCII/ISO-8859 so comparing the size doesn't make sense.
- demetrius 3y agoWell, it can be expressed with a one-byte encoding like cp1251, cp866 or KOI8-R which are commonly (albeit incorrectly) called ASCII.