Janet for Mortals

Re:Janet for Mortals by freilanzer on Friday March 31, 2023 @10:12AM (#35387438)

Who cares about these sizes though? I know I don't and nobody I know would either. 100Mb are downloaded in roughly 6 seconds with my connection at home.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Janet for Mortals by Malcx on Friday March 31, 2023 @10:25AM (#35387621)

You forgot the /s right? Most of the world doesn't have that kind of connection.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Janet for Mortals by eru on Friday March 31, 2023 @10:34AM (#35387775)

Yes, some of us have faster internet. (Assuming freilanzer talked about megabits, not megabytes.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Janet for Mortals by freilanzer on Friday March 31, 2023 @10:51AM (#35388003)

I don't see how this is a huge problem. You don't need to download the executable once per minute.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Janet for Mortals by tmtvl on Friday March 31, 2023 @11:42AM (#35388808)

Exactly, and loading stuff into memory is free, everyone has an SSD, and RAM and L1 cache are exactly as fast as each other \s.

But on a more serious note, I actually do care because I have around 4,500 packages installed on my system. If all of those were 100MB in size I'd have a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Janet for Mortals by krinkatt on Thursday April 13, 2023 @04:04AM (#35552404)

Searching *.exe in Everyting and select all -> 12 779 objects.

With 50MB a piece that would be ~0.5TB. That is 50% of my system SSD.

[ Parent | on HN ]