3 ms·
It’s so nice seeing portability over binary size winning all around these days. Such a breath of fresh air. There might be legit cases but for some reason so ma
by JyB 3y ago
It’s so nice seeing portability over binary size winning all around these days. Such a breath of fresh air. There might be legit cases but for some reason so many people are still hang up on ´but binary size’ for no logical reason whatsoever.
- flakes 3y agoI think a lot of the "logical reason" is driven by more the ephemeral, sandboxed, execution tools. e.g. a `docker run` or `serverless` architectures, where full root filesystems are populated on demand. Less executable data size there can go a long way in reducing latency/price.
- musicale 3y ago> Less executable data size there can go a long way in reducing latency/price. According to the article, Cosmo's fat binary dash was 30% larger but ran faster and used less real memory than Alpine's x86-linux-only version. However there is still probably a 30% overhead for storage and copying.
- guenthert 3y ago> It’s so nice seeing portability over binary size winning all around these days. It does? I would rather argue that portability between desktop OS matters today less than twenty years ago as the niches are carved out, WSL 2 becomes actually usable and the desktop metaphor as a whole declines.
- mat_epice 3y agoBinary size was a lot more of a problem before customers had to buy 8-16 GB of RAM to run a web browser.