4 ms·

considering how cheap storage is nowadays nitpicking about binary size is a very weird take. Are you editing code on an esp32?

archargelod 1y ago
I just refuse to use any software that baloons it's filesize. Not because I can't afford storage, but because there are always alternatives that have similar features and packed into fraction (usually less than 1%) of filesize. If one of them can do it and other can't, it's a bad product, that I have no intention to support. We should strive to write better software that is faster, smaller and more resilient. "Storage is cheap" is a bad mentality. This way of thinking is why software only gets worse with time: let's have a 400mb binary, let's use javascript for everything, who needs optimization - just buy top of the shelf super computer. And it's why terabytes of storage might not be enough soon.
- waterTanuki 1y ago
  I can empathize with how lazy some developers have gotten with program sizes. I stopped playing CoD because I refused to download their crap 150+ GB games with less content than alot of other titles that are much smaller. That said, storage is cheap, it's not a mentality but a simple statement of fact. You think zed balloons their file sizes because the developers are lazy. It's not true. It's because the users have become lazy. No one wants to spend time downloading the correct libraries to use software anymore. We've seen a rise in binary sizes in most software because of a rise in static linking, which does increase binary size, but makes using and testing the actual software much less of a pain. Not to mention the benefits in reduced memory overhead. VSCode and other editors aren't smaller because the developers are somehow better or more clever. They're using dynamic linking to call into libraries on the OS. This linking itself is a small overhead, but overhead none-the-less, and all so they can use electron + javascript, the real culprits which made people switch to neovim + zed in the first place. 400mb is such a cheap price to pay for a piece of software I use on a daily basis. I'm not here to convince you to use Zed or any editor for that matter. Use what you want. But you're not going to somehow change this trend by dying on this hill, because unless you're working with actual hardware constraints, dynamic linking makes no sense nowadays. There's no such thing as silver bullet in software. Everything is a tradeoff, and the resounding answer has been people are more than happy to trade disk space for lower memory & cpu usage.
  - dbdr 1y ago
    Does static linking really reduce memory and cpu usage significantly compared to dynamic linking?
adastra22 1y ago
RAM is not cheap. Executables live in RAM when running.
- trenchpilgrim 1y ago
  Only the parts that are being used (the working set).
- metaltyphoon 1y ago
  Executables lives in pages of RAM and not all pages are in physical memory at once.
- snovv_crash 1y ago
  No, they're mmapped to RAM. Only the pages that get used are loaded to RAM.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Absent evidence to the contrary, the reasonable assumption here is that all of those pages are being used. The rest compiler is not in the habit of generating volumes of code that aren’t being called.
    - snovv_crash 1y ago
      That would be asking to prove a negative, which isn't reasonable. Also, the question isn't if the code isn't used, it is that it isn't used simultaneously. Almost all software has many features which aren't used simultaneously. For example, it is unlikely you have all of the different language parsers loaded at the same time, because most projects use only a few.
eviks 1y ago
Why don't you actually do some considering how mistaken this superficial dismissal is: storage is not cheap where it matters - for example, your laptop's main drive. It doesn't help you that an external hard drive can be purchased cheaply since you won't be able conveniently upgrade your main mobile system. Also, the size of various used content (games/photos /videos) has increased a lot, leaving constrains on storage in place despite the price drop.
jim180 1y ago
I keep hearing this since I've got my first Pentium 1 PC, that storage is cheap.

archargelod 1y ago

I just refuse to use any software that baloons it's filesize. Not because I can't afford storage, but because there are always alternatives that have similar features and packed into fraction (usually less than 1%) of filesize. If one of them can do it and other can't, it's a bad product, that I have no intention to support. We should strive to write better software that is faster, smaller and more resilient. "Storage is cheap" is a bad mentality. This way of thinking is why software only gets worse with time: let's have a 400mb binary, let's use javascript for everything, who needs optimization - just buy top of the shelf super computer. And it's why terabytes of storage might not be enough soon.

waterTanuki 1y ago
I can empathize with how lazy some developers have gotten with program sizes. I stopped playing CoD because I refused to download their crap 150+ GB games with less content than alot of other titles that are much smaller. That said, storage is cheap, it's not a mentality but a simple statement of fact. You think zed balloons their file sizes because the developers are lazy. It's not true. It's because the users have become lazy. No one wants to spend time downloading the correct libraries to use software anymore. We've seen a rise in binary sizes in most software because of a rise in static linking, which does increase binary size, but makes using and testing the actual software much less of a pain. Not to mention the benefits in reduced memory overhead. VSCode and other editors aren't smaller because the developers are somehow better or more clever. They're using dynamic linking to call into libraries on the OS. This linking itself is a small overhead, but overhead none-the-less, and all so they can use electron + javascript, the real culprits which made people switch to neovim + zed in the first place. 400mb is such a cheap price to pay for a piece of software I use on a daily basis. I'm not here to convince you to use Zed or any editor for that matter. Use what you want. But you're not going to somehow change this trend by dying on this hill, because unless you're working with actual hardware constraints, dynamic linking makes no sense nowadays. There's no such thing as silver bullet in software. Everything is a tradeoff, and the resounding answer has been people are more than happy to trade disk space for lower memory & cpu usage.
- dbdr 1y ago
  Does static linking really reduce memory and cpu usage significantly compared to dynamic linking?

adastra22 1y ago

RAM is not cheap. Executables live in RAM when running.

trenchpilgrim 1y ago
Only the parts that are being used (the working set).
metaltyphoon 1y ago
Executables lives in pages of RAM and not all pages are in physical memory at once.
snovv_crash 1y ago
No, they're mmapped to RAM. Only the pages that get used are loaded to RAM.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Absent evidence to the contrary, the reasonable assumption here is that all of those pages are being used. The rest compiler is not in the habit of generating volumes of code that aren’t being called.
  - snovv_crash 1y ago
    That would be asking to prove a negative, which isn't reasonable. Also, the question isn't if the code isn't used, it is that it isn't used simultaneously. Almost all software has many features which aren't used simultaneously. For example, it is unlikely you have all of the different language parsers loaded at the same time, because most projects use only a few.

eviks 1y ago

Why don't you actually do some considering how mistaken this superficial dismissal is: storage is not cheap where it matters - for example, your laptop's main drive. It doesn't help you that an external hard drive can be purchased cheaply since you won't be able conveniently upgrade your main mobile system. Also, the size of various used content (games/photos /videos) has increased a lot, leaving constrains on storage in place despite the price drop.

jim180 1y ago

I keep hearing this since I've got my first Pentium 1 PC, that storage is cheap.