> If personal storage units were given away for free, you might argue that it doesn't make sense to organize your stuff, or remove stuff you don't need anymore, and you would be wrong. The least important reason to consider is to conserve disk and bandwidth; the most important is to reduce risk by reducing surface area. Small, sleek and efficient is mostly about reducing cognitive load, even if it had it's roots in mechanical resource conservation.
I agree with that much, but using GTK+ in the normal way for your language has a much lower cognitive load than any proposed alternative.
> BTW I work on a project that made this same argument years ago, writ large, for the CI system they built. "Size doesn't matter; just throw more money at instances; its cheaper than spending dev resources to make it efficient." So, now we have a development pipeline that uses more EC2 instances than production, by a factor of about 100. The build no longer runs well on (very fast) dev machines, and takes 30 minutes even on xlarge instances. The build is enormous, complex, and slow, and it was allowed to get that way because someone made the same argument you are making against a strawman.
That's a textbook slippery slope fallacy. If and when resource consumption becomes a significant issue for your use case, take measures to address that. Size absolutely can matter. But 120mb does not matter.
Because it is a waste of resources and an extremely good indicator (as shown by the replies to these posts) that the low standards the developers of these applications have towards their code.
As an example (which i like to point out, but also sad to note that it is only a minority, showing the state of modern desktop software) i bought Total Commander exactly because of how small, lightweight and responsive it is (the entire installation is 14MB, the application itself uses at this moment 3.5MB of RAM - although often goes up to 8MB, depending on what i'm doing and how many tabs i have open - which btw is around 5 times more than the Windows 10 calculator!) while providing a ton of functionality (...certainly more than a calculator :-P). And it isn't like it was written in direct oh-so-hard-to-use pure Win32 API either, the 32bit version is written in Delphi which has a very rich framework and the 64bit version is written in Lazarus (which is pretty much an open source Delphi) and beyond those it uses several additional libraries. It just didn't make choices that were wasteful from the start.
So here is a case of someone making money (from me, but also others since its lightness and power are pretty much what everyone cites about it) explicitly because they cared about their program's resource usage.
I just really really wish more desktop software would do the same. Sadly it only goes in the opposite direction.
If your business code is 300k, or about 1/13 of that, then slapping a whopping 30 bibles of bullshit you will definitely not use for a 2 pane thing with a couple buttons and some renderer output on one side is not an insignificant investment.
And you are missing it because you're OK with jamming your code right inside 400 times more foreign code in order to display a cute window with two panes in it.
Do please make a civil effort to understand there's people who are not ok with it.
People like OP, who feels devoting 47 bibles of code to displaying a taskbar widget is not OK.
Or like me, who actually likes to know exactly what is my code doing.
It's a bit rich to be asking someone to be civil in the same post where you turn your non-point into a personal attack. If there's a point I'm missing then make that point. Don't just talk about "number of bibles" as though it means something.
