You can play it in your browser here.

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t particularly care about code size as a user or as a programmer.

    Hard drive space is the cheapest thing you’ve got on a computer.

    You could always run gentoo and use -Os … that can make things a lot smaller but also slower.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hard drive space is the cheapest thing you’ve got on a computer.

      I hate this “storage is cheap” mentality, it’s a cop out for being wasteful without a reason. “Gas is cheap” was common up to the early 1970s, until it wasn’t anymore. “Freshwater is cheap”, until it isn’t anymore.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It’s an invented problem. A program takes what a program takes. Everyone cares way more about the code being legible, the code being fast enough, and the code not using a ton of memory (and even that last one is kind of shrugged off depending on context).

        Applications taking 3mb take 3mb because they do next to nothing or they do it with a bunch of shared libraries … which is a whole other dependency management mess and wasting a few mb on a drive.

        There’s also a huge difference between being wasteful of something that pollutes the planet in mass and is not renewable like gasoline (which is the only reason you’d be upset about that now) and wasting a few mb on a drive.

        The equivalent of your complaint 3mb vs 200mb is like complaining about a person taking a trip to the grocery store… It’s insignificant and often necessary.

        You can say that program does way more than you need, but … nobody is catering to “only what you specifically need” and using the larger program almost certainly covers your needs.

        Furthermore, like I already said making things smaller often makes them slower… Since CPU is more expensive to improve, of course things are bigger, that’s what more people care about. Some video games take that to an extreme with uncompressed files and 250GB install footprints … but 200mb?

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Everyone cares way more about the code being legible, the code being fast enough, and the code not using a ton of memory (and even that last one is kind of shrugged off depending on context).

          And then you look at real life and notice that code everywhere is slow, bloated and inefficient. But hey, it’s “legible”! To one or two devs, hopefully.

          The equivalent of your complaint 3mb vs 200mb is like complaining about a person taking a trip to the grocery store

          Terrible analogy. A better equivalent is someone renting a garage to store stuff inside and now, because they have so much space, there’s that urge to fill it, whether it makes sense to or not.

          making things smaller often makes them slower

          It’s usually the other way around. As a rule of thumb, less code = smaller size = faster execution. In theory, 1k lines of code will require less computation, less processing, than 10k.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Are you willing to give up 1080p screens and 16-bit/44.1kHz sampled music? Or how about languages that can’t be represented in ASCII, much less Latin-1? Because handling those take up way more space than code.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Let me quote myself:

          I hate this “storage is cheap” mentality, it’s a cop out for being wasteful without a reason.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            And there’s almost always a reason. Code size tends to be modest compared to supporting data around it.

            • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I see you’ve never dealt with a real life project that requires god knows how many different libraries off nodejs because 🤷‍♂️

              Dependency hell takes a lot of space.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                I have. Still small compared to the images and such that are used in a user facing application.

                Edit: just to bring in real numbers, I have an old TypeScript project that results in a 109M node_modules dir. Which I agree is absurd. I also have an old anime video, 21 minutes long, at only 560x432 resolution, 24fps, which takes 171M. And that’s my point: even in really bad cases, code size tends to be swamped out by everything else in user-facing applications. If there’s any kind of images, music, or video, the code size will be a small part of the complete picture.

        • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          You present a false dichotomy. Yes, things like uncompressed audio and HD video take up more storage space, but that does not negate that modern commercial software is very inefficient with how it uses resources. You could improve the efficiency of the system while keeping HD video, it is not a mutually exclusive choice.

          For example, booting up Windows and doing nothing takes up 4gb of RAM, while doing the same with a lean Linux installation would take up a quarter of that, despite both operating systems having identical functionality (run web browser, open applications, edit documents, play games, etc).

          • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Windows takes a percentage of your available RAM, you can boot it on 4GB RAM and it will use 1GB of so

            • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Sure, and there are some performance gains to be made from it I’m sure, but when my OS is doing that and my web browser is doing that and my browser based chat client and my browser based text editor are all doing that, it gets pretty sluggish.

              This is why Linux is a godsend for older machines, even running the exact same applications (Firefox, Discord, and vscode) on the exact same hardware, it still feels more responsive on Linux because there is less overhead from the OS itself.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Does Windows booting take up that much space because of code, or because of data that code is loading?