4 ms·
Uh, is "being easy to statically compile" some benchmark for simplicity that I've never heard of? Also, what do you care if git is 230MB? Do they even make th
by humbledrone 14y ago
Uh, is "being easy to statically compile" some benchmark for simplicity that I've never heard of?
Also, what do you care if git is 230MB? Do they even make thumb drives that small any more?
- Maro 14y ago> Uh, is "being easy to statically compile" some benchmark for simplicity that I've never heard of? Yes. It's not the benchmark, but it's a benchmark.
- ggggit 14y agoThank you Maro. I've never understood why static linking and easy compilation, not to mention being concerned with file sizes, upsets certain people when mentioned on mailing lists and forums. But it always does.
- kzrdude 14y agoa 230MB executable is no fun.. it needs to be read from disk to be executed, and bigger code means worse cache use (for instructions) when running.
- fusiongyro 14y agoIt's 115 links to a 2 MB executable. The actual on-disk size is 2 MB.
- ggggit 14y agoRight. I feel stupid that I did not realise this. I am a big fan of crunched binaries, actually. That guy at U of Maryland who introduced it to BSD in the early 90's is a software hero in my book. For Linux fans, I guess your hero would be Bruce Perens or whoever was behind Busybox. Anyway I've learned something more about git from admitting my error. Thank you HN!
- fusiongyro 14y agoYou know what's funny? I made the same mistake a year or two ago. :)