Mike Gunter
Why is executable size a barrier? 1.64 megabytes (that's the size of the executable I built with GHC most recently) of disk space costs less than half a cent.
I don't like this argument. Can I go to a computer store, pay a cent, and get a hard disk with space 1.64 megabytes or more? Until then, I can't believe that 1.64 megabytes of disk space costs less than half a cent. When a compiler does not perform as good as other compilers (e.g., in terms of generated code size), it is important to ask: Why does it happen? Is there anything we can do to improve it? Being critical is the first step towards progress. (Of course these questions should be asked in a constructive rather than whining way.) Why would anyone optimize code for time --- a second of electricity and labour cost less than a cent...
Why is executable size a barrier? 1.64 megabytes (that's the size of the executable I built with GHC most recently) of disk space costs less than half a cent.
AL> I don't like this argument. Can I go to a computer store, pay a cent, AL> and get a hard disk with space 1.64 megabytes or more? Until then, I AL> can't believe that 1.64 megabytes of disk space costs less than half a AL> cent. 1 year ago I bought 20Gb for 200$. That will be 200/(20*1024) = 0.009765625 dollars per megabyte. Pretty much less than half a cent. -- Dmitry Astapov //ADEpt E-mail: adept@umc.com.ua GPG KeyID/fprint: F5D7639D/CA36 E6C4 815D 434D 0498 2B08 7867 4860 F5D7 639D
At 10:51 19/12/2001 +0200, you wrote:
Why is executable size a barrier? 1.64 megabytes (that's the size of the executable I built with GHC most recently) of disk space costs less than half a cent.
AL> I don't like this argument. Can I go to a computer store, pay a cent, AL> and get a hard disk with space 1.64 megabytes or more? Until then, I AL> can't believe that 1.64 megabytes of disk space costs less than half a AL> cent.
1 year ago I bought 20Gb for 200$. That will be 200/(20*1024) = 0.009765625 dollars per megabyte. Pretty much less than half a cent.
I don't think it is about how much memory or hard disk space cost. If it is possible to reduce the footprint of any software without reducing efficiency than this is certainly worthwhile. I believe that there is a more scientific issue behind this, as was correctly pointed out by Albert. It should be investigated why the executable is so large, and then considering whether it can be done in a better way. Just throwing more hardware at things does not mean that they are better and certainly seems a very short sighted option. Maybe there is a genuine problem there and the executable cannot be any smaller, in which case this is good to know (and might initiate some nice research). If it can be done smaller, what is wrong with doing it? Stephan Stephan Reiff-Marganiec Research Fellow Department of Computing Science; University of Stirling email: srm@cs.stir.ac.uk tel: 01786 46 7448
participants (3)
-
Albert Lai -
Dmitry Astapov -
Stephan Reiff-Marganiec