3 ms·

>This was brought nowhere better to the front than in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s where t

by copergi 12y ago

>This was brought nowhere better to the front than in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s where they showed that the tools written because gnu tools were too big when measured in a running computer take up just as many resources. At what time in the video does that happen? I didn't have time to watch the whole thing, but it doesn't appear that what you are suggesting was even brought up much less demonstrated?

clarry 12y ago
They're just measuring code size and such. Kilobytes that do not really matter, unless you're embedded. Right near the end they present some minimal tools that are supposed to have no bloat because they're written in assembly and don't need libc. Turns out these aren't any better than gnu tools with dietlibc, after some shaving. Not really worth watching through, if you were expecting discussion about real bloat. I think they're just setting up a straw man, a bad one at that too.