Preferences

Great catch! Comments mentioned getting it down to ~2MB but that’s still humongous.

If you just think about how roughly (napkin math) 2MB can be 100k loc, that’s nuts


arlort
Is It though? You won't get it on an embedded device (maybe) but you could install a thousand of these tools and barely even notice the space being taken up on most machines
getcrunk OP
I think that’s a lame argument. First because it’s kind of a fallacy. Size is absolute not relative to something. Especially for software. No one thinks of software size primarily in the context of their disk space.

Further I think everyone keeps getting larger and larger memory because software keeps getting more and more bloated.

I remember when 64gb iPhone was more than enough (I don’t take pictures so just apps and data) Now my 128 is getting uncomfortable due to the os and app sizes. My next phone likely will be a 256

hnlmorg
I’m usually the first to complain about bloat but your counterpoints to the GPs “lame arguments” are themselves, fallacies.

> First because it’s kind of a fallacy. Size is absolute not relative to something. Especially for software. No one thinks of software size primarily in the context of their disk space.

That’s exactly how most people think about file sizes.

When your disk is full, you don’t delete the smallest files first. You delete the biggest.

> Further I think everyone keeps getting larger and larger memory because software keeps getting more and more bloated.

RAM sizes have actually stagnated over the last decade.

> I remember when 64gb iPhone was more than enough (I don’t take pictures so just apps and data) Now my 128 is getting uncomfortable due to the os and app sizes. My next phone likely will be a 256

That’s because media sizes increase, not executable sizes.

And people do want higher resolution cameras, higher definition videos, improved audio quality, etc. These are genuinely desirable features.

Couple that with improved internet bandwidth allowing for content providers to push higher bitrate media, however the need to still locally cache media.

nicoburns
> That’s because media sizes increase, not executable sizes.

Part of it is app sizes on mobile. But it's apps in the 200mb - 2gb range that are the problem, not ones that single-digit megabytes.

hnlmorg
200MB apps wouldn’t even make a dent on a 64GB device.

The 2GB apps are usually so large because they include high quality media assets. For example, Spotify will frequently consumer multiple GBs of storage but the vast majority of that is audio cache.

ghosty141
> No one thinks of software size primarily in the context of their disk space.

This is wrong. The reason why many old tools are so small was because you had far less space. If you have a 20tb harddrive you wouldn't care about whether ls took up 1kb or 2mb, on a 1gb harddrive it matters/ed much more.

Optimization takes time, I'm sure if OP wanted he could shrink the binary size by quite a lot but doing so has its costs and nowadays its rarely worth paying that since nobody even notices wether a program is 2kb or 2mb. It doesn't matter anymore in the age of 1TB bootdrives.

dotancohen
So bloated software is motivating you to spend more for the larger capacity phone?

What incentive does Apple have to help iOS devs get package sizes down, then?

Size may be absolute, but bigness and smallness are inherently and inescapably relative.
vlovich123
When you include the code for all the dependency features this uses, you probably do end up close to 100k LoC net, no?
mtndew4brkfst
lib.rs has a nifty (and occasionally shocking) portrayal of this on their crate pages.

https://lib.rs/crates/lstr

says for this one the deps clock in at: ~19–29MB ~487K SLoC

This item has no comments currently.