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
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
I also read these two from that site, the latter of which I think
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
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
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
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
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
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. :-)
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.