Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-06 Thread Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
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

Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
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

Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread po via Digitalmars-d
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

Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d
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

Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread ketmar via Digitalmars-d
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

Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
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

Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
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

Re: Some notes on performance

2014-09-02 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d
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

2014-09-02 Thread Wyatt via Digitalmars-d
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.