The memory/size paranoia

WHAT THE SHITTY FUCK

Okay. So I'm reading a programming websight and I want to download some documentation and there's that [m][u]/![/u][/m] WARNING BIG FILE, where by big they mean 200kB. I remember when I was younger and I had to download files from Europe. 2MB files took several hours to download. Guess what, it was 20 years ago, you fucking pretentious ``hackers''.

Also, 4MB of memory usage is a perfectly acceptable for a text editor nowadays. It's not the 70s anymore.

ALSO, go fuck yourself with your ``gcc hello world bloat''. Nobody cares if the compiled file is 300kB instead of 20.

I won't even mention the ``omg ghc is soooooo big almost half percent of my disk space!!!!!''. Fuck off.

Clearly it was written recently. Clearly they should be ashamed of themselves.

────┐               ┌────────────┐
     └─────┐       ┌─┘            └──┐           HAVE YOU READ
           └───────┘          ┌───┐  └──┐      YOUR SICP TODAY ?
                              │ P │     │
                              └───┘     │
                                        │
                                ┌───────┘
    ──────────────────┐         └──────┐
                      └─────┐      ┌───┘
                            └──────┘

ALSO, go fuck yourself with your ``gcc hello world bloat''. Nobody cares if the compiled file is 300kB instead of 20.
Fuck you, troll. I have every right to complain about slow and bloated shit. It's because of retards like you that things are the way they are. Fuck you! ihbt :(

>>4
It's more like this quibbling is only significant to specialists that make up a minority of the intended audience. If you quibble over this, it means you are some sort of specialist, some sort of troll, or some sort of idiot.

People tend to define bloated as “features that I disagree with” instead of “unnecessary features that add unnecessary bulk to the end result”.

>>5
Yes, but whether or not features are unnecessary (in terms of point of view) depends almost exclusively on the person's agreement with them. People find the features they use to be necessary. No story there. It's almost impossible to take a more objective frame of reference anyway. How do you define necessary?

>>6
I would define necessary (in the context of programming or software) as the software system specs combined with logistical specs to deliver the system in question.

Anyway, my point that I didn't make in >>5 is there are usually good reasons for why there is overhead in software. While it could be possible to minimize the overhead/cruft you should also consider that GCC is intended to cater to a general audience that would possible make use of features that rely on that overhead. Don't forget the fact that there could also be a hundred other reasons to justify this overhead.

Fuck file sizes; programmers are designing programs to GET SHIT DONE QUICKLY. I'm pretty sure most people have 40+ gigabyte hard drives. We should be more concerned about execution speed, than file sizes. ICC FTW.

>>8
Exactly. I feel very sorry for people who are forced to use pre-1990's hardware in this day and age.

>>9
Try making GNU/Linux or anything post-Windows Vista running on a computer with less than 256MB. Good luck.

>>10
If by GNU/Linux you mean a current GUI environment like Gnome, then yeah, it won't work well for the spec of a machine with a primary storage of 256MB. Our modern systems are built upon large libraries that offer many features to cater to current developer and user demands. This results in relatively large resource requirements that would be difficult in weaker machines.

Modern machines aren't weak and in fact, modern systems are often more powerful than people would handle. In many cases, the programmer can afford to spare the extra 20 megs of RAM and 300 megs of secondary storage. However, this doesn't mean we should forsake resource frugality, it just means that there are often better things to do than heavily invest into micromanage resources in this environment. Of course, this would change if your specs explicitly require efficiency.

Oh yeah, running highly capable software in weaker hardware is possible today. See the modern smartphone for example. The smartphone is an example of an environment that dictates efficient resource management that is worth a strong investment in efficient resource management.

This is blo[i][/i]at.

>>10
I ran KDE in a laptop with only 128MB of RAM. Carefully disabling all visual extras and picking low-demand desktop themes made my computer quite usable.

However, running any Java shit had catastrophic consequences, but hell, who needs Java?

I comfortably run xfce on a 128MB RAM machine. I didn't even have to sacrifice many graphical effects.

I ran KDE 3.2 for about a year on a 200MHz Pentium Pro with 64MB of RAM and a further 64MB of swap. It ran fine except for Firefox and big Java programs like Openoffice.