Thread overview
Some notes on performance
Sep 02, 2014
Joakim
Sep 02, 2014
po
Sep 02, 2014
ketmar
Sep 02, 2014
Wyatt
Sep 02, 2014
Joakim
Sep 02, 2014
Joakim
Sep 06, 2014
Marco Leise
September 02, 2014
I was googling around for information on ninja, the build system used by the Chromium project, when I stumbled across this interesting article about how it was optimized for performance:

http://aosabook.org/en/posa/ninja.html

I also read these two from that site, the latter of which I think I skimmed once before:

http://aosabook.org/en/gpsd.html
http://aosabook.org/en/llvm.html

There are a host of articles on a bunch of open source projects:

http://aosabook.org/en/index.html

I hadn't seen these articles mentioned here, thought some of you might like them too.
September 02, 2014
 The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary!  Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function.

On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 09:27:29 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> I was googling around for information on ninja, the build system used by the Chromium project, when I stumbled across this interesting article about how it was optimized for performance:
>
> http://aosabook.org/en/posa/ninja.html
>
September 02, 2014
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:23:58 UTC, po wrote:
>  The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary!  Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function.

You should see how big it gets when you build it with all the debug symbols included ;-)
September 02, 2014
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:23:57 +0000
po via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

>   The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary!  Gawd
> damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern
> browsers require way too much shit to function.
i believe that he means "non-stripped binary".


September 02, 2014
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:23:58 UTC, po wrote:
>  The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary!  Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function.

The latter.

On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> i believe that he means "non-stripped binary".

I think that might be stripped: Chrome is gigantic, about as big as the base install of an open-source unix like FreeBSD, ie kernel and userland.  That's why people compare web browsers to OS's these days. ;)
September 02, 2014
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 11:19:09 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:23:58 UTC, po wrote:
>> The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary!  Gawd damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern browsers require way too much shit to function.
>
> The latter.
>
> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> i believe that he means "non-stripped binary".
>
> I think that might be stripped: Chrome is gigantic, about as big as the base install of an open-source unix like FreeBSD, ie kernel and userland.  That's why people compare web browsers to OS's these days. ;)

That reminded me, here's a navigable treemap of their binary from four years ago, made by the ninja guy, when it was "only" 28.5 MBs:

http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/bloat/

His blog post from back then with a bit more info:

http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2010/11/tree-maps.html
September 02, 2014
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> i believe that he means "non-stripped binary".

No, I don't think he does.  With the debug symbols etc. in place, it gets much, much bigger. :-)
September 02, 2014
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 11:36:36 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 10:34:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> i believe that he means "non-stripped binary".
>
> No, I don't think he does.  With the debug symbols etc. in place, it gets much, much bigger. :-)

I'd usually be able to tell you exactly how much bigger, but 16GB apparently isn't enough memory for linking the damn thing.

Yes. Really.

-Wyatt
September 06, 2014
Am Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:23:57 +0000
schrieb "po" <yes@no.com>:

>   The first link says that Chrome is a *90* meg binary!  Gawd
> damn. Either they write some really bloated code, or modern
> browsers require way too much shit to function.

Hmm, my installation of Lynx is 1.6 MiB in size. But
gfx and HTML 5 are kind of non-existent.

-- 
Marco