No, the installation of Pharo is not large its actually small
So No, the Pharo installation is not large its actually small . You think I am joking ? Ok lets take a look at some of the most popular programming languages out there 1) Pharo = 100 MBs 2) Cuis = 70 MBs 3) Python = 100MBs 4) Java = 120 MBbs 5) .NET = 240Mbs 6) Ruby , source code folder alone 92mb , with build 200mbs 7) Javascript , Firefox = 200 MBs and it does not stop there, because none of the above is similar to Pharo, they dont come with IDEs so lets take a look at programming languages packaged with IDEs 1) Visual Studio (C++, C#, Visual Basic etc) 7 GBs 2) XCode (ObjC, Swift , C/C++ [clang]) 13 GBs 3) Delphi = 2 GBs ( not including .NET) 4) Gambas , source code alone 60 MBs (Visual Basic 6 free software clone) , cant build it on MacOS 5) Cygwin , ranges from 100 mbs to 100 GBs Of course that does not mean that extremely small installs do not exist, they do An example is Lua, the Lua executable is only 300 KBs (300 times smaller than Pharo) but its super bare bones (no IDE, no GUI , no GUI API, no standard library, no version control, pretty much nothing)
On 2 Nov 2016, at 11:04, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
So No, the Pharo installation is not large its actually small . You think I am joking ? Ok lets take a look at some of the most popular programming languages out there
1) Pharo = 100 MBs
where do you get this number? (not to say that also Pharo is like Java+Eclipse+Tomcat+â¦) Esteban
2) Cuis = 70 MBs 3) Python = 100MBs 4) Java = 120 MBbs 5) .NET = 240Mbs 6) Ruby , source code folder alone 92mb , with build 200mbs 7) Javascript , Firefox = 200 MBs
and it does not stop there, because none of the above is similar to Pharo, they dont come with IDEs so lets take a look at programming languages packaged with IDEs
1) Visual Studio (C++, C#, Visual Basic etc) 7 GBs 2) XCode (ObjC, Swift , C/C++ [clang]) 13 GBs 3) Delphi = 2 GBs ( not including .NET) 4) Gambas , source code alone 60 MBs (Visual Basic 6 free software clone) , cant build it on MacOS 5) Cygwin , ranges from 100 mbs to 100 GBs
Of course that does not mean that extremely small installs do not exist, they do
An example is Lua, the Lua executable is only 300 KBs (300 times smaller than Pharo) but its super bare bones (no IDE, no GUI , no GUI API, no standard library, no version control, pretty much nothing)
The numbers are widely available online , since most software comes with minimum system requirements. .NET was the only real challenge because Microsoft tries to mislead you into thinking its small by saying the installer is few MBs , BUT, the installer obviously is a web installer and it depends on previous installations of .NET. Here some links http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21230657/what-is-the-current-full-install... https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-size-and-how-long-does-it-take-Visual-Stud... http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Seattle/en/Installation_Notes etc For Pharo, Cuis, Lua, Python, Ruby , Gambas and XCODE I have them installed so I can directly verify and confirm these number. I can also switch to my Windows boot to confirm Visual Studio and .NET but I dont have too since I have a rough idea because I installed the Windows boot a week ago and I remember how long the installs took.
Oups sorry you meant just Pharo, I have a clean build of Pharo 6 (latest VM- latest image) every day so its easy to check the total size of the folder. Its 47 MBs for the image , 43 MBs for the vm (including plugins) and the rest is just 10 mbs of various things.
On 2 Nov 2016, at 11:32, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Oups sorry you meant just Pharo, I have a clean build of Pharo 6 (latest VM- latest image) every day so its easy to check the total size of the folder.
Its 47 MBs for the image , 43 MBs for the vm (including plugins) and the rest is just 10 mbs of various things.
ah, but this is fake (we have a bug shrinking the image). real image is around 32m. sources are also 32m. changes are going to be zero on release. how you get 43m in vm? my VMs (all of them, linux, win and mac), are never bigger than 12m cheers! Esteban
On 2 Nov 2016, at 12:15, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Nov 2016, at 11:32, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Oups sorry you meant just Pharo, I have a clean build of Pharo 6 (latest VM- latest image) every day so its easy to check the total size of the folder.
Its 47 MBs for the image , 43 MBs for the vm (including plugins) and the rest is just 10 mbs of various things.
ah, but this is fake (we have a bug shrinking the image). real image is around 32m. sources are also 32m. changes are going to be zero on release.
how you get 43m in vm? my VMs (all of them, linux, win and mac), are never bigger than 12m
cheers! Esteban
sorry, I forget: 32+32+11=75m to have: Java+javasrc.zip (I do not remember the name)+eclipse+tomcat+⦠not bad :P (it is not bad at all being 100m either ;) ) Esteban
Dimitris, Add some node project size with npm dependencies for some nice sizes too. There it is also in terms of the number of files... Phil Le 2 nov. 2016 12:17, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> a écrit :
On 2 Nov 2016, at 12:15, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2 Nov 2016, at 11:32, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
Oups sorry you meant just Pharo, I have a clean build of Pharo 6 (latest VM- latest image) every day so its easy to check the total size of the folder.
Its 47 MBs for the image , 43 MBs for the vm (including plugins) and the rest is just 10 mbs of various things.
ah, but this is fake (we have a bug shrinking the image). real image is around 32m. sources are also 32m. changes are going to be zero on release.
how you get 43m in vm? my VMs (all of them, linux, win and mac), are never bigger than 12m
cheers! Esteban
sorry, I forget:
32+32+11=75m to have: Java+javasrc.zip (I do not remember the name)+eclipse+tomcat+⦠not bad :P (it is not bad at all being 100m either ;) )
Esteban
" ah, but this is fake (we have a bug shrinking the image). real image is around 32m. sources are also 32m. changes are going to be zero on release. " You mean a bug increasing the image size, because otherwise I dont understand you " how you get 43m in vm? my VMs (all of them, linux, win and mac), are never bigger than 12m cheers! Esteban " aha you are correct , in the vm folder contains the pharoV5.sources. This is very nice, 12 mb VM indeed, so there is a lot more room to compress than I initially thought. "Dimitris Add some node project size with npm dependencies for some nice sizes too. There it is also in terms of the number of files..." from what I am reading online, npm projects tend to be around 100 mbs, but still they give you no GUIs and no IDE. so maybe its 100 mb NPM + 200 MB the browser (Chrome / Firefox) + 100 MB the IDE plus some extra tools. But I am not NodeJS developer so I cannot confirm this. I have experience with all the languages I mentioned but I try to avoid the mess that is called "web development". By the way , those numbers are not much diiferent from Pharo. All the example I have that are 4-100x times bigger than Pharo offer also the equivalent libraries set , tools etc. For example Java and Python libraries are far larger than Pharo's. Most likely NPM is in that category. The lesson from this story is If you want a powerful environment expect to pay in hundreds of megabytes. If don't care then you can go down to few hundreds kbs . However judging from what is popular I think its safe to assume that developers love large powerful environments and don't care about size. Pharo if we take into account the size of its library , IDEs , tools etc 100 MBs is pretty much a very reasonable size. Now if we want to deliver a Lua-like Pharo version, with almost no VM, no library, no guis, no IDE just for the purpose of embedding it as a scripting engine, I am all for it. I cannot say I need it, but why not. But lets stop calling Pharo , fat, its not true and its rude. Pharo has feelings too you know :D
2016-11-02 11:04 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
So No, the Pharo installation is not large its actually small . You think I am joking ? Ok lets take a look at some of the most popular programming languages out there
1) Pharo = 100 MBs 2) Cuis = 70 MBs
some of the most popular programming languages :)
obviously not, added them as a reference for the comparison ;) On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:19 PM Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-11-02 11:04 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
So No, the Pharo installation is not large its actually small . You think I am joking ? Ok lets take a look at some of the most popular programming languages out there
1) Pharo = 100 MBs 2) Cuis = 70 MBs
some of the most popular programming languages :)
participants (4)
-
Denis Kudriashov -
Dimitris Chloupis -
Esteban Lorenzano -
phil＠highoctane.be