On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:24 +0800
Chris Down <chris_AT_chrisdown.name> wrote:
> Storage space is really cheap. If there is some reason that it is
> desirable for the binaries to be bigger as a tradeoff, I am all in
> favour of it (of course, if the binary size can be reduced without much
> complication, I'm also in favour of that, I just don't care an awful lot
> in non-embedded scenarios, where I would almost certainly use C anyway).
Well, I do care about storage-space, as I am using an SSD!
> Also, "Hello World" is not really representative of a typical program.
> Bear in mind that there are many things that you bear the cost of using
> once, and not again. I agree the size seems large, but with drives
> floating at around $0.00005/MB, I care little about it for non-embedded
> applications.
Yes, that's a point. Go implements GC and other stuff in the binary,
which blows its size up a lot.
However, if we take the Hello-World-program as the lowest common
denominator, we could calculate, that if we ported all basic tools in
sbase (currently 70) to the Go language, the compiled binaries would
need around 100MB-200MB _after_ stripping unnecessary stuff from it (as
explained earlier).
And don't get me started on the busybox-approach!
This may be just 0.01% of a 1TB-drive, but it sure adds up on a 128G or
even 64G SSD.
> I appreciate that my needs/use cases are not necessarily representative
> of others on this list.
Yes, that's a fair assumption.
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Wed Mar 05 2014 - 12:48:13 CET