• PixxlMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just don’t get the obsession with small executable file sizes. 100 MB here and there hasn’t mattered at all in desktop development for many years. Feels like arbitrary goals set up just to be able to say “look there are still uses for [unmanaged language]”. And of course there are, but a 60 MB smaller executables on a desktop with several terabytes of storage just isn’t one of them. And no, developer, about to comment about how you’ve only got 5 millibits of storage on your embedded system, we’re not talking about that.

    • TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Simple, larger binaries = more time to load into memory. Why over complicate things that could’ve been made way simpler?