Re: Some notes on performance
Am Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:23:57 + schrieb po y...@no.com: The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary! Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function. Hmm, my installation of Lynx is 1.6 MiB in size. But gfx and HTML 5 are kind of non-existent. -- Marco
Re: Some notes on performance
The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary! Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function. On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 09:27:29 UTC, Joakim wrote: I was googling around for information on ninja, the build system used by the Chromium project, when I stumbled across this interesting article about how it was optimized for performance: http://aosabook.org/en/posa/ninja.html
Re: Some notes on performance
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:23:58 UTC, po wrote: The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary! Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function. You should see how big it gets when you build it with all the debug symbols included ;-)
Re: Some notes on performance
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:23:57 + po via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote: The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary! Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function. i believe that he means non-stripped binary. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Some notes on performance
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:23:58 UTC, po wrote: The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary! Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function. The latter. On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: i believe that he means non-stripped binary. I think that might be stripped: Chrome is gigantic, about as big as the base install of an open-source unix like FreeBSD, ie kernel and userland. That's why people compare web browsers to OS's these days. ;)
Re: Some notes on performance
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 11:19:09 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:23:58 UTC, po wrote: The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary! Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function. The latter. On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: i believe that he means non-stripped binary. I think that might be stripped: Chrome is gigantic, about as big as the base install of an open-source unix like FreeBSD, ie kernel and userland. That's why people compare web browsers to OS's these days. ;) That reminded me, here's a navigable treemap of their binary from four years ago, made by the ninja guy, when it was only 28.5 MBs: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/bloat/ His blog post from back then with a bit more info: http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2010/11/tree-maps.html
Re: Some notes on performance
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: i believe that he means non-stripped binary. No, I don't think he does. With the debug symbols etc. in place, it gets much, much bigger. :-)
Re: Some notes on performance
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 11:36:36 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: i believe that he means non-stripped binary. No, I don't think he does. With the debug symbols etc. in place, it gets much, much bigger. :-) I'd usually be able to tell you exactly how much bigger, but 16GB apparently isn't enough memory for linking the damn thing. Yes. Really. -Wyatt
