44 ms·
> 2. The huge editor software file size. I am not leaving > 400mb for "yet another text editor" I don't know why you'd care about this, besides reasons of
by sagichmal 12y ago
> 2. The huge editor software file size. I am not leaving
> 400mb for "yet another text editor"
I don't know why you'd care about this, besides reasons of dogmatic principle. Disk is the cheapest thing in the world. Any benefit that can be had at the cost of larger artifact size, especially for things like consumer applications, should be taken, IMO.
- Fastidious 12y agoIt adds up. More and more applications are that fat. My system drive is 1 TB, and I am a point in which I need to judge which application is worthy of taking space. I agree that 400 MB for an editor is a tad too much.
- thedufer 12y ago400 MB costs less than 2 cents. Is it really worth your time and energy to worry about disk space when you could double the space on your machine for $50?
- staticfish 12y agoSpace is expensive if you are using an SSD.
- scott_karana 12y agoAnd what if we're talking about, say, a proprietary SSD, which is replaceable but you lose your warranty? Apple's Macbook SSD upgrades are quite a bit more expensive than you're positing.
- keerthiko 12y agoTheoretically, space is cheap. But space is precious on a 128gb ssd macbook air. I am pretty economical with space, I don't store media on here, it's almost entirely dev tools and code projects. And I do not want a piece of software that takes 400mb without providing me significantly more value than what my 30mb (Sublime Text) one. I don't care about media being large, or backups taking a lot of space, or installers being big, since I can shove those on an external. But I'm obviously not going to do that with any dev tools. Any tool that cannot justify it's size cannot live on my internal drive, and if it ain't there I'm not using it.